April 2015 UTAH VALLEY HOME CONSORTIUM: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation

Prepared by: James Wood

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Key Findings ...... 3 Demographic Trends ...... 3 Economic Trends ...... 4 Housing Market Conditions ...... 4 Housing Needs Assessment ...... 7

I. Demographic Trends for Utah County and Consortium Cities...... 8 Demographic Trends ...... 8 Population and Household Projections ...... 9 Natural Increase and Migration ...... 10 Population and Household Characteristics ...... 10 Demographic Trends of Minorities and Hispanics ...... 13 Income ...... 14 Households by Tenure, Size and Age ...... 14 Demographic Trends of Consortium Cities ...... 16 Population Projections for Consortium Cities ...... 16

II. Economic Trends for Utah County and Consortium Cities ...... 39 Employment Base ...... 39 Growth Sectors ...... 39 Major Employers ...... 39 Employment Change and Unemployment ...... 39 Wage Rates and Household Income ...... 39 Recent Significant Expansions ...... 40 Employment Forecast ...... 45

III. Current Housing Market Conditions ...... 47 Rental Market Characteristics ...... 47 Student Rental Market ...... 47 Non-student Rental Market ...... 47 Residential Construction Trends ...... 56 Development of Major Apartment Projects ...... 56 Rental Market Conditions ...... 57 Demographic Growth ...... 57 Net Migration ...... 58 Employment Trends ...... 58 Rental Rate Trends ...... 59 Vacancy Rate Trends ...... 59 Projects Under Construction ...... 60 Owner Occupied Housing in Utah County and Consortium Cities ...... 61 Residential Construction Trends ...... 62 Real Estate Sales ...... 62 Housing Prices and Affordability ...... 63 Foreclosures ...... 67 Outlook for New Home Construction, Home Sales and Prices ...... 68

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 1

V. Housing Needs Assessment ...... 69 Overcrowding ...... 78 Homeless Population ...... 78

VITA – James Wood ...... 79

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 2

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The purpose of this report is to provide a demographic, economic and housing market context for the housing needs assessment of the Utah Valley HOME Consortium. The four sections of the report are devoted to demographics trends, economic trends, housing market conditions and housing needs. The key findings for each section are summarized below:

Demographics Trends ●Utah County is the fastest growing Wasatch Front County. From 2000 to 2010 the average annual growth in population was 3.46 percent. During the decade the population of the county increased by 148,000. The U.S. Census Bureau reported the population of the county at 516,000 in 2010. The 2014 population (July 1) for the county was 560,975.

●From 2000 to 2010 the number of households in Utah County increased from 100,000 to 140,000, an average annual growth rate of 3.47 percent. In 2014 the number of households in the county was 153,000.

●The minority population of Utah County has increased from 39,700 individuals in 2000 to 81,850 in 2010 as the minority share of the population grew from 10.8 percent to 15.8 percent. Hispanics account for nearly 70 percent of the minority population. Provo and Orem has the highest share of minority populations of any cities. In each city twenty-two percent of the population is minority. In Lehi only eleven percent of the population is minority.

●Utah County has the youngest population and the largest household size of any county in the state. The median age is 24.6 years and the average household size in 3.57. A young population with large families has implications for types of housing needed.

●For the past several years demographic growth has been concentrated in the northern half of the county. The three highest growth cities are Lehi, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain. Since 2000 the respective increases in population have been 35,350 for Lehi, 21,750 for Saratoga Springs and 22,050 for Eagle Mountain. The combined population of the three cities has increased from 22,300 in 2000 to 101,350 in 2013. In both percent change and numeric change these three cities rank in the top five in growth. Nearly forty-five percent of the demographic growth of the county over the past thirteen years has been in these three cities.

●Since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 the population and household growth rates have slowed in Utah County to two percent annually. The Governor’s Office of Management and Budget projects the annual population growth rate for the 2010-2020 decade to be 2.56 percent. Household growth is projected at 2.66 annually. At these rates of growth the population of Utah County will reach 668,500 by 2020 and the number of households will increase to 183,800.

●The numeric change for both population and households during the 2010-2020 decade will be approximately the same as the numeric change for population and households during the 2000-2010 decade; an increase of approximately 150,000 individuals and 40,000 households.

●The population of Provo will grow from 112,500 in 2010 to 126,400 by 2020 and the population of Orem will grow from 88,300 in 2010 to 99,300 in 2020. These cities will continue to be the largest cities in the county but also among the slowest growing cities. Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 3

●The slowdown in population growth is due primarily to lower levels of net in-migration. The recent population data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows out-migration of 840 individuals in 2014. The net out-migration seems unlikely given the economic growth but putting that Census 2014 estimate aside net in-migration has not exceeded 2,300 in the past six years. This is in sharp contrast to the 2001-2008 period when net in-migration never fell below 7,500.

●It appears that slow demographic growth will likely prevail for a few more years. Of course the important implication of slower growth is lower levels of overall demand for housing.

Economic Trends ●Over the past four years the average annual growth in employment has been 4.6 percent. The number of jobs in the county in the last four years has increased by nearly 35,000 to 207,500 in the third quarter of 2014. The high rate of growth has pushed the unemployment rate down to 3.1 percent in January of 2015.

●Employment increased at an average annual growth rate of 1.35 percent from 2000 to 2010; the slowest growth rate of any decade since World War II. The Great Recession took a serious toll on employment, especially construction jobs. But as noted employment growth has been very strong since 2010. Despite lower rates of growth Utah County ranks second among all 29 counties in numeric increase in employment over the 2000-2013 period. Employment in the county has increased by nearly 50,000 jobs since 2000.

●The health care sector has been the most rapidly growing sector of the local economy. Employment has increased from 14,000 jobs in 2000 to 24,000 in 2013. Measured by numeric increase private educational services (BYU) is the second leading sector with an increase of 8,700 jobs since 2000. BYU is the largest employer in the county.

●Despite experiencing strong job growth, wage increases have been sluggish. In inflation adjusted dollars the median wage rate in Utah County has declined from $39,875 in 2000 to $38,244 in 2014, a decline of 3.3 percent in real wages over the past fourteen years.

●In addition median household income, in inflation adjusted 2013 dollars, has dropped by nearly seven percent from 2000 to 2013 due to stagnant wages and fewer household members in the labor force. In 2013 the median household income in Utah County was $60,172.

●High rates of employment growth but sluggish wage increases has implications for housing needs. The demographic and economic characteristics put a premium on affordable housing.

Housing Market Conditions ●The Consortium cities had approximately 90,000 owner occupied units and 50,000 renter occupied units in 2014. The median sales price of single family homes in the Consortium was $243,600, a six percent increase in 2014. The average rent for a two bedroom two bath units was $959. The apartment vacancy rate was 3.6 percent at year-end 2014. Rental rates increased 7.6 percent in 2014.

●Since 2000 the number of renter occupied units has grown at a faster pace than owner occupied units. Renter occupied units have increased at 3.2 percent annually compared to 2.9 percent for owner occupied units.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 4

●The home building industry in Utah County has yet to recover from the Great Recession. In 2014 the Consortium cities issued building permits for 1,770 single family homes, about one third the level of 2006. Full recovery is still years away for the home building industry. A comparison of single family building permits issued in 2006 and 2014 for the entitlement cities and the high growth cities of Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs shows the slow rate of recovery.

Single Family Building Permits Issued

2006 2014 Provo 286 116 Orem 156 94 Lehi 1,519 359 Eagle Mountain 845 260 Saratoga Springs 580 192 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

●Real estate sales of existing homes, unlike the home building sector, have fully recovered. The pre- recession peak was 2007 with 5,663 home sales. In 2014 real estate agents sold 5,501 homes in Utah County, 97 percent of the peak sales.

●The relatively weak single family market is partly offset by the record level of new apartment construction. From 2000 to 2013 the average number of permits issued for apartment units has been 340. In 2014 permits were issued for 2,100 units, an all-time record.

●There are twenty new apartment projects under construction in Utah County. These projects have a total of 3,137 units. The new apartments are located in the following communities: Lehi (305 units), Lindon (90 units), Orem (970 units), Pleasant Grove (700 units), Provo (184 units), Springville (260 units) and Vineyard (628 units).

●All of the major new apartment projects are market rate units. The only rent assisted project is a small Senior project of 25 units in Springville not included in the list of major new projects. The typical two bedroom two bath rent in the new projects is about $1,250 and $1.25/sq. ft. The twenty new apartment projects are not affordable for households at < 60 percent AMI.

●The trend in foreclosures was measured by real estate owned (REOs) properties sold by financial institutions. This is the best proxy for foreclosures at the county and city level. REO sales peaked in Utah County in 2011 at 19.4 percent of all home sales, a total of 867 REO sales. This very high share for REOs put downward pressure on housing prices. However, by 2014 REO’s share of home sales had dropped to 4.8 percent, 266 REO sales. Eagle Mountain and Lehi had the highest share of foreclosure sales.

●Home prices also peaked in 2007 with a median sales price of $245,900. Over the next four years the median sales price of a home fell 22 percent to $193,000 but then prices turned in 2012 increasing by 26 percent in the following three years. In 2014 the median sales price was $243,590, 99 percent of the peak price.

●With the recovery in prices housing affordability has declined. For the Provo-Orem metropolitan area the Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index has fallen from a very high degree of affordability

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 5 in 2012 and 2013 to a balanced market in 2014, i.e. a fifty percent index number which indicates half of all homes are affordable to half of all families.

●Although in recent years housing affordability has been acceptable over most cities in the county affordability is declining. Housing prices have increased significantly in the past three years and rental rates have risen by nearly eight percent over the past year.

●Tax credit projects play a key role in providing affordable rental housing. In Utah County there are only 1,100 tax credit units. These units account for less than three percent of the rental inventory. In Salt Lake County tax credit units represent eight percent of the inventory and in Tooele and Summit Counties tax credit units have a twenty percent share of the rental market. Eighty percent of the tax credit units in Utah County are located in Provo, Lehi and Pleasant Grove.

●Below are demographic, economic and housing profiles of change for Utah County.

Table 1 Demographic, Economic and Housing Change in Utah County (inflation adjusted 2013 dollars for income and wages)

2000 2010 2013 2020 Population (2014) 368,536 516,564 560,974 668,564 Households (2014) 99,937 140,602 154,000 183,818 Household Size* 3.59 3.57 3.55 3.54 Employment 152,699 174,639 201,000 NA Average Wage $35,950 $36,986 $37,224 NA Median Household Income $62,850 $61,997 $60,172 NA Occupied Dwelling Units 99,937 140,602 152,300 NA Owner Occupied 66,786 96,053 102,300 NA Renter Occupied 33,151 44,549 50,000 NA *includes only household population which is lower than population shown in row one due to group quarters (student housing, etc.). Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, Utah Department of Workforce Services, U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 2 Average Annual Change in Demographic, Economic and Housing Estimates

2000-2010 2010-2013 2010-2020 Population (2014) 3.43% 2.1% 2.56 Households (2014) 3.47% 2.3% 2.66 Household Size -0.056% -0.18% -0.08 Employment 1.35% 4.8% NA Average Wage 0.28% 0.21% NA Median Household Income -0.14% -2.9% NA Occupied Dwelling Units 3.47% 2.5% NA Owner Occupied 3.7% 2.1% NA Renter Occupied 3.0% 3.9% NA Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, Utah Department of Workforce Services, U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 6

Housing Needs Assessment ●Affordable rental housing is the greatest housing need in Utah County. According to the 2007- 2011 CHAS twenty percent of all renters in the county have incomes below 50 percent AMI and have a severe housing cost burden. Half of all very low income renters have severe cost burdens. A severe cost burden is defined as a household spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. The number of very low income severely cost burdened renter households in the county totals 8,765 households. Only five percent of owners have income less than 50 percent AMI and are severely cost burdened.

●In Provo City the number of very low income renter households (=<50% AMI) with severe housing cost burdens is 4,425 households, twenty-four percent of all renter households. Only 5.7 percent of all owners are very low income households with severe cost burdens.

●HUD information on the share of affordable rental housing need met by a city’s inventory shows that Provo actually has a surplus of affordable rental housing for renter households at =>30 percent AMI. The only shortage or deficit of affordable rental housing in Provo is for the extremely low income household =<30 percent AMI. For these households, which account for fifteen percent of all households in the city, the need exceeds supply of units by about 40 percent. In Orem the need for rental units that are affordable to extremely low income renter households exceeds supply by 75 percent and in Lehi need exceeds supply by 100 percent, i.e. there are no affordable rental units for extremely low income households in Lehi.

●The Analysis of Impediments (AI) report produced for Provo and Utah County identified ten impediments to fair housing choice. Addressing these impediments will help reduce housing needs particularly for protected classes.

●The AI showed a need for broader spatial distribution of rental units, particularly rent assisted unit. The concentration of rental units in a few cities limits the housing opportunities for low income families. Without a broader distribution of rental housing the concentrations of low income renters who are disproportionately minority has implications for school performance, education quality, equity and fairness and opportunity for families and their children.

●Utah County has a very young population and a population with large households. Consequently there is a need for rental units for large families (5 or more persons). Very few large renter families live outside the Provo-Orem area suggesting a need for three bedroom rental units in cities located in the northern and southern areas of the county.

●There is no tax credit rental project south of Provo. There is a housing need for rent assisted units in cities south of Springville.

●The owner occupied inventories in Provo, Orem, Springville and Spanish Fork are older housing inventories. Preservation and rehabilitation programs are a housing need in these cities. Existing programs should be continued and enhanced using HOME and CDBG programs.

●In the near term housing needs in Utah County will be subject to sluggish income and wages, higher housing prices and rental rates, high concentrations of low income renters and “deferred maintenance” housing stock in older cities.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 7

I. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS FOR UTAH COUNTY AND CONSORTIUM CITIES

Demographic Trends – During the 2000-2010 period Utah County experienced very rapid demographic growth. Over the decade the population of the county increased from 368,500 to 516,500, adding 148,000 individuals Table 1. This was the largest numeric increase among all 29 counties in Utah Table 1. The percent increase over the decade was 40.2 percent, which ranked fourth among all counties behind Wasatch, Washington and Tooele Counties.

Table 1 Top Ranked Counties: Numeric and Percent Increase 2000-2010

Numeric Increase Percent Increase County Change County Change Utah 148,028 Wasatch 54.7% Salt Lake 131,268 Washington 52.9% Davis 67,485 Tooele 42.9% Washington 47,761 Utah 40.2% Weber 34,703 Iron 36.7% Cache 21,265 Morgan 32.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Since 2010 the population growth rate for Utah County has moderated. Utah County has fallen behind Salt Lake County in numeric increase and dropping to sixth in percent increase for the 2010- 2014 period. During the 2000-2010 decade the average annual population growth rate in the County was 3.43 percent. Since 2010 the average annual growth rate has slowed to 2.34 percent Table 2. The July 1, 2014 population was 560,974.

Table 2 Top Ranked Counties: Numeric and Percent Increase 2010-2014

Numeric Increase Percent Increase County Change County Change Salt Lake 62,087 Wasatch 17.8% Utah 44,410 Uintah 13.1% Davis 23,213 Morgan 12.0% Washington 13,833 Washington 10.0% Weber 9,239 Duchesne 9.5% Utah 8.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

The deceleration in demographic growth is shown in Figure 1. Since 2007 the annual percent change has dropped in half, with most years recording a gain of around two percent. In 2014 the percentage increase was only 1.65 percent. The average annual growth from 2010 to 2014 is 1.94 percent, the lowest rate of growth since the 1980s, see Table 3.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 8

Figure 1 Annual Percent in Population in Utah County

5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Table 3 Average Annual Growth Rate in Population by Decade

Average Annual Growth Rate 1940-49 4.02% 1950-59 2.84% 1960-69 2.60% 1970-79 4.64% 1980-89 2.01% 1990-99 3.34% 2000-09 4.02% 2010-14 1.94% Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee.

Population and Household Projections - The population and household projections are derived from two sources. The first using the actual growth rate as reported by the census and applying that growth rate out to 2020. The second set of projections use growth rates from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget. During the decade of 2000-2010 population grew at an annual rate of 3.43 percent and households at 3.47 percent annually, considerably higher than the annual projections from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) for 2010 to 2020 of 2.56 percent for population and 2.66 percent for households Table 4. The projections for the decade from GOMB are more conservative than a continuation of the 2000 to 2010 trend. Using the GOMB projected rate of growth the population in Utah County in 2020 will be 668,564, an increase of 117,500 during the 2013 to 2020 period Table 5. At this growth rate the number of households will increase by 32,500 by 2020, an annual average of 4,600 household and a demand for additional housing units of 4,600.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 9

Table 4 Profile: Demographic, Housing and Employment for Utah County

2000 2010 Percent Absolute AAGR* Population 368,536 516,564 28.7% 148,028 3.43 Group Quarters Population 9,545 13,912 31.4% 4,367 3.84 Households 99,937 140,602 28.9% 40,665 3.47 Average Household Size 3.59 3.57 -0.6% 0.02 --- Owner Occupied Units 66,786 96,053 30.5% 29,267 3.7 Renter Occupied Units 33,151 44,549 25.6% 11,398 3.0 Renters by Age 0 < 55 years 30,453 39,010 21.9% 8,557 2.53 > 55years 2,698 5,539 51.3% 2,841 7.5 New Apt. Cnst (2000-2010) --- 3,477 --- Nonfarm Employment 152,699 174,639 12.6% 21,940 1.35 Average Wage Rate $26,574 $34,656 23.3% 8,082 2.69 *AAGR = average annual growth rate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Department of Workforce Services, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

Table 5 Population and Household Projections for Utah County

Using Census 2000-2010 Using GOPB Growth Projections Rate 2010-2020 Population AAGR 3.43 2.56 Population Projections 2020 723,750 668,564 Households AAGR 3.47 2.66 Household Projections 2020 197,750 183,818 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and GOPB. . Natural Increase and Migration – Natural increase had been stable at about 10,000 people over the last several years until 2013 when natural increase jumped to over 11,000 people. Therefore the recent demographic weakness is not due to a decline in natural increase but rather a decline of net in- migration Figure 2 and Table 6. Net in-migration has fallen sharply since 2009. Annually net in- migration has been less than 2,000 individuals. In 2014 there was actually net out-migration of 840 individuals.

Population and Household Characteristics - The age structure of the population in Utah County is quite unique. The county is the youngest county in the state with an average age of 24.6 compared to 29.2 statewide. The share of population under 10 years of age is considerably higher than the state profile and the number of 20-24 year olds is very high due to the large student populations at BYU and Utah Valley University Table 7.

Households by type for Utah County show a much higher share for the following categories: family households, families with children and husband and wife families with children less than 18 years. The average household size is very large at 3.57. Forty-one percent of all households are husband and wife families with children less than 18 years. Only six percent of the population is over 65 years. Nineteen percent of all households have a member over 65 years of age Table 8.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 10

Figure 2 Components of Demographic Change in Utah County: Natural Increase and Net In-Migration

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

-5,000

Natural Increase Net Migration Total

Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee.

Table 6 Demographic Change in Utah County –(shaded area = projections)

Natural Net Absolute Population Births Deaths Increase Migration Change % Chg 2000 371,798 9,844 1,521 8,323 5,108 13,431 2001 384,928 10,169 1,595 8,574 9,979 18,553 4.61% 2002 396,775 10,292 1,578 8,714 6,816 15,530 4.53% 2003 408,958 10,728 1,757 8,971 8,338 17,309 4.52% 2004 424,881 10,918 1,728 9,190 5,151 14,341 4.49% 2005 441,720 11,015 1,667 9,348 9,098 18,446 4.40% 2006 462,033 11,467 1,728 9,739 9,613 19,352 4.41% 2007 480,717 11,964 1,864 10,100 15,922 26,022 4.37% 2008 497,637 12,464 1,871 10,593 7,592 18,185 2.24% 2009 508,354 12,382 1,844 10,538 1,272 11,810 2.13% 2010 519,299 12,010 1,851 10,159 786 10,945 2.01% 2011 530,789 12,090 1,974 10,116 1,374 11,490 1.98% 2012 541,378 11,912 2,079 9,833 756 10,589 2.00% 2013 551,891 13,136 2,003 11,133 2,297 13,430 2.64% 2014 560,972 11,961 2,048 9,913 -840 9,048 1.65% 2015 576,120 15,148 2.70% 2016 590,120 14,000 2.43% 2017 606,000 15,880 2.70% *Estimates recalibrated after 2010 Census. Estimates for Utah prior to 2010 were about 10,000 too high. Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 11

Table 7 Population by Age Group in Utah County – 2010

% Share Age Group Population % Share State Under 5 years 58,362 11.3% 9.5% 5 to 9 years 52,582 10.2% 9.0% 10 to 14 years 46,048 8.9% 8.2% 15 to 19 years 48,158 9.3% 8.0% 20 to 24 years 58,410 11.3% 8.2% 25 to 29 years 47,455 9.2% 8.3% 30 to 34 years 40,647 7.9% 7.8% 35 to 39 years 31,148 6.0% 6.5% 40 to 44 years 25,253 4.9% 5.6% 45 to 49 years 22,433 4.3% 5.6% 50 to 54 years 20,845 4.0% 5.5% 55 to 59 years 17,486 3.4% 4.8% 60 to 64 years 14,280 2.8% 3.9% 65 to 69 years 10,653 2.1% 2.9% 70 to 74 years 7,834 1.5% 2.1% 75 to 79 years 6,305 1.2% 1.7% 80 to 84 years 4,551 0.9% 1.2% 85 years and over 4,114 0.8% 1.1% Median age (years) 24.6 29.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 8 Household Types in Utah County – 2010

Number % Share % Share of State Total households 140,602 100.0 100.0 Family households (families) 114,350 81.3 75.2 With own children under 18 years 67,063 47.7 39.5 Husband-wife family 98,318 69.9 61.0 With own children under 18 years 58,630 41.7 31.7 Male householder, no wife present 4,726 3.4 4.4 With own children under 18 years 2,178 1.5 2.2 Female householder, no husband present 11,306 8.0 9.7 With own children under 18 years 6,255 4.4 5.5 Nonfamily households 26,252 18.7 24.8 Householder living alone 16,307 11.6 18.7 Male 6,709 4.8 8.6 65 years and over 1,443 1.0 1.8 Female 9,598 6.8 10.0 65 years and over 4,804 3.4 4.6 Households with individuals under 18 years 72,229 51.4 43.3 Households with individuals 65 years and over 22,827 16.5 20.0 Average household size 3.57 --- 3.10 Average family size 3.88 --- 3.56 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 12

Demographics Trends of Minorities and Hispanics - The rate of growth of the minority population has slowed as the size of minority population has increased. For example, between 1990 and 2000 the minority population of the county increased by 173.6 percent but, during the 2000 to 2010 period growth dropped to 106 percent Table 9 and 10. This slowdown is simply a reflection of the increased size of the minority population. The minority population in the county was only 14,534 in 1990, but has grown to 81,856 in 2010. In absolute terms, the minority population shows strong growth. From 1990-2000 the minority population increased by 25,205 individuals while in the 2000-2010 decade it increased by 42,117 individuals.

The increase in the Hispanic population shows a similar pattern. The number of Hispanic individuals grew by over 200 percent from 1990-2000, but the growth rate dropped to 116.3 percent from 2000-2010 as the number Hispanic individuals increased from 8,488 in 1990 to 55,793 in 2010. Asian and Pacific Islander, which have small populations, experienced an increased rate of relative growth as this minority subgroup grew from 2,804 in 1990 to 6,912 in 2010.

Table 9 Population by Race and Ethnicity in Utah County

1990 2000 2010 Total Population 263,590 368,536 516,564 White Alone 249,056 328,797 434,708 Black Alone 359 1,002 2,421 Asian and Pacific Islander 2,804 3,855 6,912 Other Race Alone — — — Two or More Races — — — Hispanic Origin 8,488 25,791 55,793 Minority Population 14,534 39,739 81,856 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 10 Absolute and Percent Change in Population by Race and Ethnicity Utah County

1990–2000 2000–2010 1990–2000 2000–2010 Total Population 104,946 148,028 39.8% 40.2% White Alone 79,741 105,911 32.0% 32.2% Black Alone 643 1,419 179.1% 141.6% Asian and Pacific Islander 1,051 3,057 37.5% 79.3% Other Race Alone — — — — Two or More Races — — — — Hispanic Origin 17,303 30,002 203.9% 116.3% Minority Population 25,205 42,117 173.4% 106.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

The minority’s share of population in Utah County has increased from 10.8 percent in 2000 to 15.8 percent in 2010 Table 11. The Hispanic share has grown from 7 percent to 10.8 percent. At the city level, the minority and Hispanic populations are concentrated in two cities; Provo and Orem. Roughly one-in-five residents in both of these cities are minorities (22.5 percent in both Provo and Orem).

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 13

Table 11 Percent Share of Population by Race and Ethnicity Utah County

1990 2000 2010 Total Population 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% White Alone 94.5% 89.2% 84.2% Black Alone 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% Asian and Pacific Islander 1.1% 1.0% 1.3% Other Race Alone — — — Two or More Races — — — Hispanic Origin 3.2% 7.0% 10.8% Minority Population 5.5% 10.8% 15.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Income – The median income for Utah County was estimated at $60,196 in 2013 Table 12. This figure is slightly higher than the state wide average of $59,700. Eighteen percent of all households in Utah County receive Social Security compared to 22 percent statewide. Over 8 percent of the population has been on food stamps in the past 12 months. Unfortunately there are no data at the county level on wage rates by occupation. Table 12 Household Income in Utah County - 2013

Income Category Households Less than $10,000 7,007 $10,000 to $14,999 5,720 $15,000 to $24,999 12,299 $25,000 to $34,999 12,728 $35,000 to $49,999 20,593 $50,000 to $74,999 30,746 $75,000 to $99,999 21,737 $100,000 to $149,999 20,736 $150,000 to $149,999 6,435 $200,000 and more 5,005 Total Households 143,006 Median Income 60,196 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Households by Tenure, Size and Age – There were nearly 45,000 renters in Utah County in 2010. Two thirds of all renters were two to four person households Table 13 , a surprisingly high share. Large renter households of five persons or more account for 20 percent of all renters. Senior renters (65 years+) represent a smaller share of the renter population than statewide. Senior renters account for only 6.8 percent of all renter households compared to 9.7 percent statewide Table 14. There are only 3,000 renter households in Utah County over 65 years of age.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 14

Table 13 Households by Tenure and Household Size in Utah County

Households % Share Owner-occupied housing units 96,053 100.0 1-person household 9,918 10.3 2-person household 23,135 24.1 3-person household 14,384 15.0 4-person household 15,967 16.6 5-person household 14,262 14.8 6-person household 10,289 10.7 7-or-more-person household 8,098 8.4 Renter-occupied housing units 44,549 100.0 1-person household 6,389 14.3 2-person household 12,252 27.5 3-person household 8,679 19.5 4-person household 8,085 18.1 5-person household 4,207 9.4 6-person household 3,083 6.9 7-or-more-person household 1,854 4.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table QT-H2.

Table 14 Tenure by Age of Householder in Utah County -2010

Households % Share Owner-occupied housing units 96,053 100.0 15 to 24 years 1,885 2.0 25 to 34 years 21,228 22.1 35 to 44 years 21,843 22.7 45 to 54 years 18,772 19.5 55 to 64 years 14,892 15.5 65 years and over 17,433 18.1 65 to 74 years 9,396 9.8 75 to 84 years 6,034 6.3 85 years and over 2,003 2.1 Renter-occupied housing units 44,549 100.0 15 to 24 years 12,218 27.4 25 to 34 years 15,706 35.3 35 to 44 years 6,825 15.3 45 to 54 years 4,261 9.6 55 to 64 years 2,514 5.6 65 years and over 3,025 6.8 65 to 74 years 1,244 2.8 75 to 84 years 960 2.2 85 years and over 821 1.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Table QT-H2.

The demographic trends and estimates show a large, very young county with relatively high rates of growth (percent and numeric growth) in the 2000-2010 period but slower growth in recent years due to low levels of net in-migration. The county is the second largest housing market in the state and is characterized by higher levels of traditional families and a small Senior renter population.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 15

Demographic Trends of Consortium Cities - The sixteen Consortium cities had a total population in 2013 of 522,756 Table 15. The three non-consortium cities of Alpine, Elk Ridge and Woodland Hills had a population of 14,310 and the unincorporated area had a population of 14,825. The three subtotals combine for a total population of 551,891. The total Consortium cities and unincorporated area have a total population of 537,066, which is 97 percent of the county population. Since 2000 the population of the consortium has increased by 50 percent. Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain and Lehi are consistently the fastest growing cities in the Consortium whether measured in terms of percent change or numeric increase Tables 16-19. No city has lost population. The two largest cities; Orem and Provo have the slowest average annual growth rates for the 2000-2013 of 0.6 perfect and 0.8 percent respectively. Lehi has had the greatest numeric change since 2000 with an increase of 35,350.

The population of Utah County is very young, in fact the youngest of any county. The median age in the county is 24.6 years, due in part to the student population at BYU and UVU. Nevertheless the large families with young children are the primary cause of the young median age. In addition the average household size for the county is 3.57, much high than the 3.01 persons per household for the state. The most extreme household characteristics in Utah County are in Eagle Mountain. Eagle Mountain has with a median age of 20.3 years and an average household size of 4.19 persons Table 20.

Senior renters account for twelve percent of renters in Utah County, considerably lower than the Senior share statewide of eighteen percent Table 21. Again this is a reflection of the large number of young student renters. There are a total of 5,300 Senior renters in the consortium cities and 5,500 countywide. There are about 1,700 Senior renters 75 years and over in the consortium cities. This older, renter population is particularly vulnerable to tight rental markets and rising rental rates.

Population Projections for Consortium City - The population projections show that between 2010 and 2020 the three fastest growing cities in numeric increase will again be Lehi, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain Table 22. In terms of percent increase Vineyard is bound to be one of the fastest growing cities over the next five to fifteen years.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 16

Table 15 Population Change by Cities in Utah County

% Chg. %Chg. 2000 2010 2013 2000-2013 2010-2013 Consortium Cities American Fork 21,941 26,263 27,813 26.8% 5.9% Cedar Hills 3,094 9,796 10,179 229.0% 3.9% Eagle Mountain 2,157 21,415 24,217 1,022.7% 13.1% Highland 8,172 15,523 17,011 108.2% 9.6% Lehi 19,028 47,407 54,382 185.8% 14.7% Lindon 8,363 10,070 10,611 26.9% 5.4% Mapleton 5,809 7,979 8,784 51.2% 10.1% Orem 84,324 88,328 91,648 8.7% 3.8% Payson 12,716 18,294 19,154 50.6% 4.7% Pleasant Grove 23,468 33,509 34,988 49.1% 4.4% Provo 105,166 112,488 116,288 10.6% 3.4% Salem 4,372 6,423 6,928 58.5% 7.9% Santaquin 4,834 9,128 9,843 103.6% 7.8% Saratoga Springs 1,003 17,781 22,749 2,168.1% 27.9% Spanish Fork 20,246 34,691 36,956 82.5% 6.5% Springville 20,424 29,466 31,205 52.8% 5.9% Subtotal 345,117 488,561 522,756 51.5% 7.0% Non-Consortium Cities Alpine 7,146 9,555 10,024 40.3% 4.9% Elk Ridge 1,838 2,436 2,850 55.1% 17.0% Woodland Hills 941 1,344 1,436 52.6% 6.8% Subtotal 9,925 13,335 14,310 51.3% 7.0% Unincorporated and Towns Cedar Fort 341 368 378 10.9% 2.7% Fairfield 119 122 2.5% Genola 965 1,370 1,397 44.8% 2.0% Goshen 874 921 935 7.0% 1.5% Vineyard 150 139 465 210.0% 234.5% Balance 11,164 11,751 11,528 3.3% -1.9% Subtotal Total 13,494 14,668 14,825 9.9% 1.1% Grand Total County Population 368,536 516,564 551,891 49.8% 6.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 17

Table 16 Consortium Cities Ranked by Demographic Growth 2000-2013

Average Annual Growth 2000 2013 % Chg. Rate Saratoga Springs 1,003 22,749 2,168.1% 27.1% Eagle Mountain 2,157 24,217 1,022.7% 20.4% Cedar Hills 3,094 10,179 229.0% 9.6% Lehi 19,028 54,382 185.8% 8.4% Highland 8,172 17,011 108.2% 5.8% Santaquin 4,834 9,843 103.6% 5.6% Spanish Fork 20,246 36,956 82.5% 4.7% Salem 4,372 6,928 58.5% 3.6% Springville 20,424 31,205 52.8% 3.3% Mapleton 5,809 8,784 51.2% 3.2% Payson 12,716 19,154 50.6% 3.2% Pleasant Grove 23,468 34,988 49.1% 3.1% Lindon 8,363 10,611 26.9% 1.8% American Fork 21,941 27,813 26.8% 1.8% Provo 105,166 116,288 10.6% 0.8% Orem 84,324 91,648 8.7% 0.6% Total 345,117 522,756 51.5% 3.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 17 Consortium Cities Ranked by Demographic Growth 2010-2013

Average Annual 2010 2013 % Chg. Growth Rate Saratoga Springs 17,781 22,749 27.9% 8.6% Lehi 47,407 54,382 14.7% 4.7% Eagle Mountain 21,415 24,217 13.1% 4.2% Mapleton 7,979 8,784 10.1% 3.3% Highland 15,523 17,011 9.6% 3.1% Salem 6,423 6,928 7.9% 2.6% Santaquin 9,128 9,843 7.8% 2.5% Spanish Fork 34,691 36,956 6.5% 2.1% American Fork 26,263 27,813 5.9% 1.9% Springville 29,466 31,205 5.9% 1.9% Lindon 10,070 10,611 5.4% 1.8% Payson 18,294 19,154 4.7% 1.5% Pleasant Grove 33,509 34,988 4.4% 1.5% Cedar Hills 9,796 10,179 3.9% 1.3% Orem 88,328 91,648 3.8% 1.2% Provo 112,488 116,288 3.4% 1.1% Total 488,561 522,756 7.0% 2.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 18

Table 18 Numeric Change in Population for Consortium Cities – 2000-2013

Numeric 2000 2013 Change Lehi 19,028 54,382 35,354 Eagle Mountain 2,157 24,217 22,060 Saratoga Springs 1,003 22,749 21,746 Spanish Fork 20,246 36,956 16,710 Pleasant Grove 23,468 34,988 11,520 Provo 105,166 116,288 11,122 Springville 20,424 31,205 10,781 Highland 8,172 17,011 8,839 Orem 84,324 91,648 7,324 Cedar Hills 3,094 10,179 7,085 Payson 12,716 19,154 6,438 American Fork 21,941 27,813 5,872 Santaquin 4,834 9,843 5,009 Mapleton 5,809 8,784 2,975 Salem 4,372 6,928 2,556 Lindon 8,363 10,611 2,248 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 19 Numeric Change in Population for Consortium Cities – 2010-2013

Numeric 2010 2013 Change Lehi 47,407 54,382 6,975 Saratoga Springs 17,781 22,749 4,968 Provo 112,488 116,288 3,800 Orem 88,328 91,648 3,320 Eagle Mountain 21,415 24,217 2,802 Spanish Fork 34,691 36,956 2,265 Springville 29,466 31,205 1,739 American Fork 26,263 27,813 1,550 Highland 15,523 17,011 1,488 Pleasant Grove 33,509 34,988 1,479 Payson 18,294 19,154 860 Mapleton 7,979 8,784 805 Santaquin 9,128 9,843 715 Lindon 10,070 10,611 541 Salem 6,423 6,928 505 Cedar Hills 9,796 10,179 383 Total 488,561 522,756 34,195 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 19

Table 20 Median Age and Average Household Size in Consortium Cities - 2010

Average Median Household Age Size American Fork 28.7 3.57 Cedar Hills 22.3 4.16 Eagle Mountain 20.3 4.19 Highland 21.9 4.38 Lehi 24.9 3.81 Lindon 26.3 3.97 Mapleton 27.9 3.89 Orem 26.2 3.35 Payson 26.2 3.60 Pleasant Grove 26.0 3.57 Provo 23.3 3.24 Salem 28.0 3.70 Santaquin 23.9 3.90 Saratoga Springs 22.6 4.05 Spanish Fork 25.0 3.73 Springville 26.7 3.44 Utah County 24.6 3.57 State 29.2 3.10 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 21 Senior Renters in Consortium Cities

Renters 55 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years Years and Total % Senior years years years years and over Over Renters Renters Utah 12,738 9,222 11,363 7,866 5,927 47,116 259,555 18.2% Utah County 1,467 1,047 1,244 960 821 5,539 44,549 12.4% American Fork 75 57 75 55 57 319 1,726 18.5% Cedar Hills 19 8 11 24 42 104 329 31.6% Eagle Mountain 22 18 21 2 0 63 707 8.9% Highland 14 13 17 5 1 50 307 16.3% Lehi 104 73 80 62 51 370 2,441 15.2% Lindon 17 12 13 17 7 66 383 17.2% Mapleton 9 10 16 7 2 44 232 19.0% Orem 317 205 281 248 242 1,293 9,695 13.3% Payson 56 55 56 37 21 225 1,128 19.9% Pleasant Grove 115 81 103 77 24 400 2,664 15.0% Provo 406 303 313 208 247 1,477 18,340 8.1% Salem 12 5 14 11 12 54 239 22.6% Santaquin 21 10 16 15 2 64 394 16.2% Saratoga Springs 24 20 18 12 1 75 651 11.5% Spanish Fork 82 59 73 73 30 317 1,928 16.4% Springville 108 72 92 45 34 351 2,308 15.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 20

Table 22 Population Projections for Cities and Towns in Utah County

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Utah County 516,564 668,564 833,101 1,019,828 1,216,695 1,398,074 Alpine city 9,555 10,670 11,667 12,851 13,400 13,700 American Fork city 26,263 32,566 39,635 47,678 54,000 58,900 Cedar Fort town 368 961 2,757 4,503 6,900 9,000 Cedar Hills city 9,796 10,733 10,884 11,689 11,800 11,900 Draper city (pt.) 1,742 2,520 3,303 3,977 5,100 6,200 Eagle Mountain city 21,415 34,152 54,095 76,469 114,400 152,500 Elk Ridge city 2,436 3,898 4,696 5,888 7,100 8,500 Fairfield town 119 599 955 2,148 3,900 5,300 Genola town 1,370 3,789 4,370 6,499 8,600 10,800 Goshen town 921 1,146 1,220 1,419 1,700 1,800 Highland city 15,523 17,792 20,712 24,073 27,100 29,500 Lehi city 47,407 62,154 82,589 103,610 120,000 133,800 Lindon city 10,070 11,753 12,459 13,721 14,600 15,900 Mapleton city 7,979 10,762 13,752 16,901 19,500 21,300 Orem city 88,328 99,227 103,321 112,288 118,900 123,600 Payson city 18,294 22,832 41,144 49,496 58,500 67,200 Pleasant Grove city 33,509 40,034 42,062 47,053 51,200 54,500 Provo city 112,488 126,377 131,068 151,877 170,600 189,400 Salem city 6,423 11,363 27,102 33,649 40,100 45,200 Santaquin city (pt.) 9,128 17,594 32,075 39,774 46,700 52,900 Saratoga Springs city 17,781 33,514 58,496 78,987 107,900 134,000 Spanish Fork city 34,691 44,623 54,143 64,607 72,300 78,300 Springville city 29,466 37,094 45,078 51,971 57,500 61,600 Vineyard town 139 2,065 8,415 15,938 20,000 20,900 Woodland Hills city 1,344 1,943 3,001 3,764 4,700 5,300 Balance of Utah County 10,009 28,404 24,101 38,998 60,195 86,074 Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 21

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF CONSORTIUM CITIES

American Fork Cedar Hills Eagle Mountain Highland Lehi Lindon Mapleton Orem Payson Pleasant Grove Provo Salem Santaquin Saratoga Springs Spanish Fork Springville

The decennial census estimates were used in the section rather than the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. The ACS estimates for small cities have large margins of errors which greatly reduces the usefulness of the estimates.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 22

Demographic Trends in American Fork, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 15,696 21,941 26,263 67.3% 19.7% White 15,127 20,413 23,333 54.2% 14.3% Minority 569 1,528 29,300 5049.4% 1817.5% Hispanic/Latino 376 1,011 1,941 416.2% 92.0% Non-Hispanic Minority 193 517 989 412.4% 91.3% American Indian 61 81 106 73.8% 30.9% Asian or Pacific Islander 116 193 339 192.2% 75.6% Asian 99 140 220 122.2% 57.1% Pacific Islander 22 53 119 440.9% 124.5% Black 6 31 78 1200.0% 151.6% Other Race 10 6 18 80.0% 200.0% Two or More Races NA 206 448 117.5% Persons with Disabilities NA 2,400 2,292 -4.5% Total Households 4,096 5,934 7,274 77.6% 22.6% Households with Children Under 18 2,349 3,409 3,882 65.3% 13.9% Households with Persons over 65 848 1,123 1,555 83.4% 38.5% Single Parent with Children under 18 315 441 620 96.8% 40.6% Large Families (5 or more persons) 1,346 1,842 2,224 65.2% 20.7% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 3,090 4,622 5,548 79.5% 20.0% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 1,006 1,312 1,726 71.6% 31.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity – American Fork, 2010

Population % Share Total 26,263 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 24,322 92.6% White Alone 23,333 88.8% Black 78 0.3% American Indian 106 0.4% Asian 220 0.8% Pacific Islander 119 0.5% Others 466 1.8% Ethnicity 0.0% Hispanic or Latino 1,941 7.4% Total Minority 2,930 11.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 23

Demographic Trends in Cedar Hills, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 769 3,094 9,796 1173.9% 216.6% White 744 2,966 9,023 1112.8% 204.2% Minority 25 128 773 2992.0% 503.9% Hispanic/Latino 13 60 411 3061.5% 585.0% Non-Hispanic Minority 12 68 362 2916.7% 432.4% American Indian 9 9 28 211.1% 211.1% Asian or Pacific Islander 3 22 148 4833.3% 572.7% Asian 3 16 95 3066.7% 493.8% Pacific Islander 0 6 53 783.3% Black 0 3 40 1233.3% Other Race 0 0 4 Two or More Races NA 34 142 317.6% Persons with Disabilities NA 175 NA Total Households 161 695 2,355 1362.7% 238.8% Households with Children Under 18 130 542 1,606 1135.4% 196.3% Households with Persons over 65 16 61 359 2143.8% 488.5% Single Parent with Children under 18 12 31 124 933.3% 300.0% Large Families (5 or more persons) 87 346 1,053 1110.3% 204.3% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 148 663 2,026 1268.9% 205.6% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 13 32 329 2430.8% 928.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity Cedar Hills, 2010

Population % Share Total 9,796 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 9,385 95.8% White Alone 9,023 92.1% Black 40 0.4% American Indian 28 0.3% Asian 95 1.0% Pacific Islander 53 0.5% Others 146 1.5% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 411 4.2% Total Minority 773 7.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 24

Demographic Trends in Eagle Mountain, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population __ 2,157 21,415 892.8% White __ 2,040 18,583 810.9% Minority __ 117 2,832 2320.5% Hispanic/Latino __ 67 1,845 2653.7% Non-Hispanic Minority __ 50 987 1874.0% American Indian __ 8 93 1062.5% Asian or Pacific Islander __ 7 245 3400.0% Asian __ 6 110 1733.3% Pacific Islander __ 1 135 13400.0% Black __ 7 114 1528.6% Other Race __ 3 24 700.0% Two or More Races __ 25 511 1944.0% Persons with Disabilities __ 93 705 658.1% Total Households __ 532 5,111 860.7% Households with Children Under 18 __ 406 3,880 855.7% Households with Persons over 65 __ 19 293 1442.1% Single Parent with Children under 18 __ 21 339 1514.3% Large Families (5 or more persons) __ 180 2,122 1078.9% Owner-Occupied Housing Units __ 522 4,404 743.7% Renter-Occupied Housing Units __ 10 707 6970.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity – Eagle Mountain, 2010

Population % Share Total 21,415 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 19,570 91.4% White Alone 18,583 86.8% Black 114 0.5% American Indian 93 0.4% Asian 110 0.5% Pacific Islander 135 0.6% Others 535 2.5% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 1,845 8.6% Total Minority 2,832 13.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 25

Demographic Trends in Highland, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 5,002 8,172 15,523 210.3% 90.0% White 4,912 7,857 14,563 196.5% 85.4% Minority 90 315 960 966.7% 204.8% Hispanic/Latino 60 177 431 618.3% 143.5% Non-Hispanic Minority 30 138 529 1663.3% 283.3% American Indian 6 11 29 383.3% 163.6% Asian or Pacific Islander 19 33 219 1052.6% 563.6% Asian 15 25 104 593.3% 316.0% Pacific Islander 5 8 115 2200.0% 1337.5% Black 5 10 70 1300.0% 600.0% Other Race 0 3 9 200.0% Two or More Races na 81 202 149.4% Persons with Disabilities na 620 Total Households 984 1,804 3,547 260.5% 96.6% Households with Children Under 18 793 1,256 2,309 191.2% 83.8% Households with Persons over 65 90 244 534 493.3% 118.9% Single Parent with Children under 18 47 67 154 227.7% 129.9% Large Families (5 or more persons) 583 890 1,729 196.6% 94.3% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 935 1,717 3,240 246.5% 88.7% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 59 87 307 420.3% 252.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Highland, 2010

Population % Share Total 15,523 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 15,092 97.2% White Alone 14,563 93.8% Black 70 0.5% American Indian 29 0.2% Asian 104 0.7% Pacific Islander 115 0.7% Others 211 1.4% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 231 1.5% Total Minority 960 6.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 26

Demographic Trends in Lehi, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 8,475 19,028 47,407 459.4% 149.1% White 8,185 17,950 42,083 414.1% 134.4% Minority 290 1,078 5,324 1735.9% 393.9% Hispanic/Latino 163 569 3,054 1773.6% 436.7% Non-Hispanic Minority 127 509 2,270 1687.4% 346.0% American Indian 38 101 170 347.4% 68.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 83 167 995 1098.8% 495.8% Asian 54 86 628 1063.0% 630.2% Pacific Islander 29 81 367 1165.5% 353.1% Black 6 47 176 2833.3% 274.5% Other Race 0 13 32 146.2% Two or More Races na 181 897 395.6% Persons with Disabilities na 1,750 2,391 36.6% Total Households 2,356 5,125 12,402 426.4% 142.0% Households with Children Under 18 1,344 3,268 7,935 490.4% 142.8% Households with Persons over 65 483 650 1,450 200.2% 123.1% Single Parent with Children under 18 179 370 872 387.2% 135.7% Large Families (5 or more persons) 733 1,615 4,392 499.2% 172.0% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 1,853 4,175 9,961 437.6% 138.6% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 503 950 2,441 385.3% 156.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Lehi , 2010

Population % Share Total 47,407 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 44,353 93.6% White Alone 42,083 88.8% Black 176 0.4% American Indian 170 0.4% Asian 628 1.3% Pacific Islander 367 0.8% Others 929 2.0% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 3,054 6.4% Total Minority 5,324 11.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 27

Demographic Trends in Lindon, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 3,818 8,363 10,070 163.8% 20.4% White 3,725 7,898 8,895 138.8% 12.6% Minority 93 465 1,175 1163.4% 152.7% Hispanic/Latino 56 278 720 1185.7% 159.0% Non-Hispanic Minority 37 187 455 1129.7% 143.3% American Indian 13 16 28 115.4% 75.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 21 71 176 738.1% 147.9% Asian 19 58 135 610.5% 132.8% Pacific Islander 2 13 41 1950.0% 215.4% Black 3 17 47 1466.7% 176.5% Other Race 0 2 10 #DIV/0! 400.0% Two or More Races na 81 194 139.5% Persons with Disabilities na 797 -100.0% Total Households 878 1,935 2,518 186.8% 30.1% Households with Children Under 18 562 1,299 1,430 154.4% 10.1% Households with Persons over 65 148 273 493 233.1% 80.6% Single Parent with Children under 18 43 85 130 202.3% 52.9% Large Families (5 or more persons) 368 871 991 169.3% 13.8% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 767 1,704 2,135 178.4% 25.3% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 111 231 383 245.0% 65.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Lindon, 2010

Population % Share Total 10,070 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 9,350 92.9% White Alone 8,895 88.3% Black 47 0.5% American Indian 28 0.3% Asian 135 1.3% Pacific Islander 41 0.4% Others 204 2.0% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 720 7.1% Total Minority 1,175 11.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 28

Demographic Trends in Mapleton, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 3,572 5,809 7,979 123.4% 37.4% White 3,495 5,611 7,424 112.4% 32.3% Minority 77 198 555 620.8% 180.3% Hispanic/Latino 69 119 279 304.3% 134.5% Non-Hispanic Minority 8 79 276 3350.0% 249.4% American Indian 2 14 21 950.0% 50.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 6 31 71 1083.3% 129.0% Asian 4 20 39 875.0% 95.0% Pacific Islander 2 11 32 1500.0% 190.9% Black 0 8 21 162.5% Other Race 0 0 9 ! Two or More Races 26 154 492.3% Persons with Disabilities 660 -100.0% Total Households 893 1,442 2,039 128.3% 41.4% Households with Children Under 18 499 843 1,111 122.6% 31.8% Households with Persons over 65 203 301 489 140.9% 62.5% Single Parent with Children under 18 27 60 91 237.0% 51.7% Large Families (5 or more persons) 331 550 755 128.1% 37.3% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 789 1,335 1,807 129.0% 35.4% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 104 107 232 123.1% 116.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity -Mapleton, 2010

Population % Share Total 7,979 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 7,700 96.5% White Alone 7,424 93.0% Black 21 0.3% American Indian 21 0.3% Asian 39 0.5% Pacific Islander 32 0.4% Others 163 2.0% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 279 3.5% Total Minority 555 7.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 29

Demographic Trends in Orem, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 67,561 84,324 88,328 30.7% 4.7% White 63,913 73,076 68,433 7.1% -6.4% Minority 3,648 11,248 19,895 445.4% 76.9% Hispanic/Latino 2,040 7,217 14,224 597.3% 97.1% Non-Hispanic Minority 1,608 4,031 5,671 252.7% 40.7% American Indian 491 521 528 7.5% 1.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 1,025 1,912 2,544 148.2% 33.1% Asian 661 1,202 1,688 155.4% 40.4% Pacific Islander 380 710 856 125.3% 20.6% Black 85 267 524 516.5% 96.3% Other Race 7 103 162 2214.3% 57.3% Two or More Races Na 1,228 1,913 55.8% Persons with Disabilities Na 9,752 7,546 -22.6% Total Households 17,584 23,382 25,816 46.8% 10.4% Households with Children Under 18 10,435 12,150 11,589 11.1% -4.6% Households with Persons over 65 2,813 3,935 5,058 79.8% 28.5% Single Parent with Children under 18 1,344 1,829 2,018 50.1% 10.3% Large Families (5 or more persons) 6,027 6,774 6,263 3.9% -7.5% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 11,934 15,685 16,121 35.1% 2.8% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 5,650 7,697 9,695 71.6% 26.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Orem, 2010

Population % Share Total 88,328 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 74,104 83.9% White Alone 68,433 77.5% Black 524 0.6% American Indian 528 0.6% Asian 1,688 1.9% Pacific Islander 856 1.0% Others 2,075 2.3% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 14,224 16.1% Total Minority 19,895 22.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 30

Demographic Trends in Payson, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 9,510 12,716 18,294 92.4% 43.9% White 9,056 11,628 15,393 70.0% 32.4% Minority 454 1,088 2,901 539.0% 166.6% Hispanic/Latino 400 864 2,431 507.8% 181.4% Non-Hispanic Minority 54 224 470 770.4% 109.8% American Indian 28 39 82 192.9% 110.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 24 69 110 358.3% 59.4% Asian 16 48 66 312.5% 37.5% Pacific Islander 9 21 44 388.9% 109.5% Black 2 13 42 2000.0% 223.1% Other Race 0 8 11 37.5% Two or More Races na 95 225 136.8% Persons with Disabilities na 1,825 Total Households 2,554 3,654 5,057 98.0% 38.4% Households with Children Under 18 1,499 2,012 2,853 90.3% 41.8% Households with Persons over 65 544 710 923 69.7% 30.0% Single Parent with Children under 18 237 333 492 107.6% 47.7% Large Families (5 or more persons) 852 1,034 1,608 88.7% 55.5% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 1,992 2,835 3,929 97.2% 38.6% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 562 819 1,128 100.7% 37.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Payson, 2010

Population % Share Total 18,294 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 15,863 86.7% White Alone 15,393 84.1% Black 42 0.2% American Indian 82 0.4% Asian 66 0.4% Pacific Islander 44 0.2% Others 236 1.3% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 2,431 13.3% Total Minority 2,901 15.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 31

Demographic Trends in Pleasant Grove, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 13,476 23,468 33,509 13,476 23,468 White 13,040 21,745 29,541 13,040 21,745 Minority 436 1,723 3,968 436 1,723 Hispanic/Latino 330 1,069 2,577 330 1,069 Non-Hispanic Minority 106 654 1,391 106 654 American Indian 37 80 106 37 80 Asian or Pacific Islander 55 215 491 55 215 Asian 45 123 308 45 123 Pacific Islander 15 92 183 15 92 Black 11 64 160 11 64 Other Race 3 10 26 3 10 Two or More Races na 285 608 na 285 Persons with Disabilities na 2,299 2,579 na 2,299 Total Households 3,465 6,109 9,381 3,465 6,109 Households with Children Under 18 2,125 3,769 5,186 2,125 3,769 Households with Persons over 65 637 901 1,527 637 901 Single Parent with Children under 18 242 477 787 242 477 Large Families (5 or more persons) 1,272 2,117 2,809 1,272 2,117 Owner-Occupied Housing Units 2,743 4,751 6,717 2,743 4,751 Renter-Occupied Housing Units 722 1,358 2,664 722 1,358 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity – Pleasant Grove, 2010

Population % Share Total 33,509 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 30,932 92.3% White Alone 29,541 88.2% Black 160 0.5% American Indian 106 0.3% Asian 308 0.9% Pacific Islander 183 0.5% Others 634 1.9% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 2,577 7.7% Total Minority 3,968 11.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 32

Demographic Trends in Provo, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 86,835 105,166 112,488 29.5% 7.0% White 79,775 88,311 87,186 9.3% -1.3% Minority 7,060 16,855 25,302 258.4% 50.1% Hispanic/Latino 3,623 11,013 17,091 371.7% 55.2% Non-Hispanic Minority 3,437 5,842 8,211 138.9% 40.6% American Indian 865 703 719 -16.9% 2.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 2,314 2,776 3,972 71.7% 43.1% Asian 1,750 1,903 2,743 56.7% 44.1% Pacific Islander 624 873 1,229 97.0% 40.8% Black 220 432 672 205.5% 55.6% Other Race 38 141 194 410.5% 37.6% Two or More Races 1,790 2,654 48.3% Persons with Disabilities 9,823 7,568 -23.0% Total Households 23,805 29,192 31,524 32.4% 8.0% Households with Children Under 18 9,113 10,627 10,962 20.3% 3.2% Households with Persons over 65 3,736 4,042 4,530 21.3% 12.1% Single Parent with Children under 18 1,395 1,773 2,027 45.3% 14.3% Large Families (5 or more persons) 4,069 4,893 5,286 29.9% 8.0% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 9,501 12,440 13,184 38.8% 6.0% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 14,304 16,752 18,340 28.2% 9.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Provo, 2010

Population % Share Total 112,488 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 95,397 84.8% White Alone 87,186 77.5% Black 672 0.6% American Indian 719 0.6% Asian 2,743 2.4% Pacific Islander 1,229 1.1% Others 2,848 2.5% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 17,091 15.2% Total Minority 25,302 22.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 33

Demographic Trends in Salem, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 2,284 4,372 6,423 181.2% 46.9% White 2,204 4,196 6,039 174.0% 43.9% Minority 80 176 384 380.0% 118.2% Hispanic/Latino 62 122 231 272.6% 89.3% Non-Hispanic Minority 18 54 153 750.0% 183.3% American Indian 9 1 22 144.4% 2100.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 8 18 40 400.0% 122.2% Asian 6 6 23 283.3% 283.3% Pacific Islander 2 12 17 750.0% 41.7% Black 0 2 28 1300.0% Other Race 1 0 4 300.0% Two or More Races na 33 59 78.8% Persons with Disabilities na 469 Total Households 572 1,128 1,737 203.7% 54.0% Households with Children Under 18 366 666 951 159.8% 42.8% Households with Persons over 65 118 230 365 209.3% 58.7% Single Parent with Children under 18 35 53 92 162.9% 73.6% Large Families (5 or more persons) 222 398 589 165.3% 48.0% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 492 986 1,498 204.5% 51.9% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 80 142 239 198.8% 68.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Salem, 2010

Population % Share Total 6,423 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 6,192 96.4% White Alone 6,039 94.0% Black 28 0.4% American Indian 22 0.3% Asian 23 0.4% Pacific Islander 17 0.3% Others 63 1.0% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 231 3.6% Total Minority 384 6.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 34

Demographic Trends in Santaquin, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 2,386 4,834 9,128 282.6% 88.8% White 2,230 4,331 7,824 250.9% 80.7% Minority 156 503 1,304 735.9% 159.2% Hispanic/Latino 138 414 1,098 695.7% 165.2% Non-Hispanic Minority 18 89 206 1044.4% 131.5% American Indian 12 30 63 425.0% 110.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 6 8 23 283.3% 187.5% Asian 5 5 13 160.0% 160.0% Pacific Islander 1 3 10 900.0% 233.3% Black 0 3 32 966.7% Other Race 0 1 12 1100.0% Two or More Races na 47 76 61.7% Persons with Disabilities na 605 Total Households 658 1,304 2,338 255.3% 79.3% Households with Children Under 18 370 827 1,457 293.8% 76.2% Households with Persons over 65 136 166 311 128.7% 87.3% Single Parent with Children under 18 39 102 174 346.2% 70.6% Large Families (5 or more persons) 206 411 858 316.5% 108.8% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 533 1,121 1,944 264.7% 73.4% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 125 183 394 215.2% 115.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Santaquin, 2010

Population % Share Total 9,128 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 8,030 88.0% White Alone 7,824 85.7% Black 32 0.4% American Indian 63 0.7% Asian 13 0.1% Pacific Islander 17 0.2% Others 63 0.7% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 231 2.5% Total Minority 384 4.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 35

Demographic Trends in Saratoga Springs, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 1,003 17,781 1,672.8% White 925 15,902 1,619.1% Minority 78 1,879 2,309.0% Hispanic/Latino 40 1,026 2,465.0% Non-Hispanic Minority 38 853 2,144.7% American Indian 1 43 4,200.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 15 303 1,920.0% Asian 10 163 1,530.0% Pacific Islander 5 140 2,700.0% Black 6 89 1,383.3% Other Race 0 33 Two or More Races 16 385 2,306.3% Persons with Disabilities 40 Total Households 271 4,387 1,518.8% Households with Children Under 18 162 3,099 1,813.0% Households with Persons over 65 26 369 1,319.2% Single Parent with Children under 18 17 284 1,570.6% Large Families (5 or more persons) 79 1,730 2,089.9% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 252 3,736 1,382.5% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 19 651 3,326.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity – Saratoga Springs, 2010

Population % Share Total 17,781 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 16,755 94.2% White Alone 15,902 89.4% Black 89 0.5% American Indian 43 0.2% Asian 163 0.9% Pacific Islander 140 0.8% Others 418 2.4% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 1,026 5.8% Total Minority 1,879 10.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 36

Demographic Trends in Spanish Fork, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 11,272 20,246 34,691 207.8% 71.3% White 10,956 18,925 29,716 171.2% 57.0% Minority 316 1,321 4,975 1474.4% 276.6% Hispanic/Latino 247 861 3,678 1389.1% 327.2% Non-Hispanic Minority 69 460 1,297 1779.7% 182.0% American Indian 40 95 153 282.5% 61.1% Asian or Pacific Islander 28 119 430 1435.7% 261.3% Asian 12 62 194 1516.7% 212.9% Pacific Islander 16 57 236 1375.0% 314.0% Black 1 38 108 10700.0% 184.2% Other Race 0 9 44 388.9% Two or More Races NA 199 562 182.4% Persons with Disabilities NA 2,314 2,402 3.8% Total Households 3,255 5,534 9,069 178.6% 63.9% Households with Children Under 18 1,748 3,305 5,514 215.4% 66.8% Households with Persons over 65 741 878 1,323 78.5% 50.7% Single Parent with Children under 18 229 421 721 214.8% 71.3% Large Families (5 or more persons) 938 1,685 3,087 229.1% 83.2% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 2,401 4,345 7,141 197.4% 64.3% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 854 1,189 1,928 125.8% 62.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity – Spanish Fork, 2010

Population % Share Total 34,691 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 31,013 89.4% White Alone 29,716 85.7% Black 108 0.3% American Indian 153 0.4% Asian 194 0.6% Pacific Islander 236 0.7% Others 606 1.7% Ethnicity 0.0% Hispanic or Latino 3,678 10.6% Total Minority 4,975 14.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 37

Demographic Trends in Springville, 1990-2010

% % 1990 2000 2010 1990-2010 2000-2010 Total Population 13,950 20,424 29,466 111.2% 44.3% White 13,508 18,932 24,885 84.2% 31.4% Minority 442 1,492 4,581 936.4% 207.0% Hispanic/Latino 258 975 3,482 1249.6% 257.1% Non-Hispanic Minority 184 517 1,099 497.3% 112.6% American Indian 93 107 132 41.9% 23.4% Asian or Pacific Islander 77 130 342 344.2% 163.1% Asian 58 72 174 200.0% 141.7% Pacific Islander 23 58 168 630.4% 189.7% Black 10 20 113 1030.0% 465.0% Other Race 4 14 24 500.0% 71.4% Two or More Races 246 488 98.4% Persons with Disabilities 2,284 2,540 11.2% Total Households 4,191 5,975 8,531 103.6% 42.8% Households with Children Under 18 2,100 3,249 4,583 118.2% 41.1% Households with Persons over 65 993 1,100 1,552 56.3% 41.1% Single Parent with Children under 18 299 471 767 156.5% 62.8% Large Families (5 or more persons) 1,073 1,572 2,358 119.8% 50.0% Owner-Occupied Housing Units 2,864 4,411 6,223 117.3% 41.1% Renter-Occupied Housing Units 1,327 1,564 2,308 73.9% 47.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Race and Ethnicity - Springville, 2010

Population % Share Total 29,466 100.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 25,984 88.2% White Alone 24,885 84.5% Black 113 0.4% American Indian 132 0.4% Asian 174 0.6% Pacific Islander 168 0.6% Others 512 1.7% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 3,482 11.8% Total Minority 4,581 15.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 38

II. ECONOMIC TRENDS FOR UTAH COUNTY AND CONSORTIUM CITIES

Employment is a long-term determinant of housing demand. A local economy needs job growth and economic expansion to support an expanding housing market. Below is a discussion of employment trends and changes in Utah County. The most recent employment data is third quarter 2014 as reported by the Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Employment Base – In the third quarter of 2014 Utah County’s job market had a total of 208,875 jobs, Table 1. Utah County accounts for one in six jobs in the state. The largest employment sectors were: retail trade with 25,567 jobs, health care with 22,986 jobs and private education services (BYU) with 20,441 jobs.

Growth Sectors - Health care has been the most important growth sector over the past twelve years. Since 2001 health care employment has increased from 14,000 jobs to 24,000 jobs, an increase of 71 percent. Education services and professional and scientific services rank second and third as growth sectors with increases of 8,700 jobs and 5,300 jobs respectively since 2001 Table 2. The professional and scientific services increase is largely attributed to high tech companies locating in the northern half of the county, most notably Adobe. While the county has achieved high rates of employment growth in the past few years the manufacturing sector has not been a participant in the growth. Manufacturing employment is down 11 percent compared to 2001. Some of this weakness is due to the closing of Geneva Steel in November of 2001.

Major Employers – The major employers in Utah County are providers of educational services, health care, manufacturing and retail services. Brigham Young University is by far the largest employer in the county with about 20,000 jobs. Alpine School District, Utah Valley University and Provo School District are also major employers. There are two manufacturing companies among the major employers; I-M Flash and Nestle Prepared Foods, Table 3.

Employment Change and Unemployment – Employment in Utah County increased steadily at a 2.9 percent annual growth rate from 2000 to 2007. Over this seven year period an additional 35,000 new jobs were created, Table 4 and Figure 3. In 2007 employment hit a pre-recession peak of 186,000 jobs but over the next three years total jobs in the county fell six percent to 174,600 jobs. In 2011 the job recovery began and since has had three solid years of gains, with jobs increasing at about 10,000 annually. The annual growth rate has reached as high as a five percent. By 2013 the county had 47,000 more jobs than 2000, a gain of 31 percent, more than double the 14 percent gain of Salt Lake County, Table 5. Preliminary data for 2014, however show that job growth may have slowed to the 3-3.5 percent range. Nevertheless, northern Utah County is the fastest growing job market in the four-county Wasatch Front region.

The unemployment rate in Utah County in 2013 was low 4.3 percent, indicating a much improved job market, Table 6. Annual data for 2014 are not available but by October 2014 monthly unemployment had dropped to 3.4 percent. A dramatic turnaround from the unemployment peak of 8.0 percent in 2010.

Wage Rates and Household Income – Utah County has a modest average wage due in part to the large number of part time jobs for students . The average wage in 2013 was $37,224 nine percent below the state average wage rate of $41,052, Table 7. The highest wage sectors are wholesale trade, information

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 39 and utilities. The highest wage, large employment sector is professional and business services with an average wage of $57,150. The median household income in 2013 was $60,172, very close to the statewide median income of $59,770. The average Social Security payment for Utah County residents was $19,097 and 9.2 percent of the households received food stamp assistance, Table 8.

In real terms the 2013 median household income in Utah County is lower than in 2000. Adjusting for inflation the median household income in Utah County was $62,016 in 2000 compared to $60,172 in 2013 Table 9. Median income hit a high of $64,809 in 2008, immediately preceding the Great Recession. The average wage in Utah County in 2013 was $37,224, nearly twenty percent below the average wage in Salt Lake County Table 10. Among Utah’s major counties Utah County is a relatively low wage county.

Recent Significant Expansions – Following the infusion of $70 million in venture capital funds Qualtrics a software company located in Provo is expanding its operations by 1,000 jobs over the next few years. Solarwinds will locate in Lehi and over several years increase employment to 1,000. Solarwinds is also a high tech software company. Xactware another software company located in Lehi is expanding by over 800 jobs. Xactware software is used by the insurance industry. Jive Communications in Orem is expanding by 575 jobs. Jive is a high tech communications company using the cloud. Frontier Communications located in Provo is a call service center and is expanding by 550 employees. Orange Soda an online marketing service in American Fork has recently expanded by 100 employees.

Table 1 Percent Share of Employment by Sector in Utah County – Third Quarter 2014

Share of Sector Employment Total Retail Trade 25,567 12.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 22,986 11.0% Private Education Services 20,441 9.8% Local Government 18,331 8.8% Manufacturing 17,880 8.6% Construction 17,283 8.3% Professional Scientific & Technical Services 15,429 7.4% Accommodation and Food Services 15,157 7.3% Administrative Support Businesses 11,451 5.5% Information 10,105 4.8% State Government 7,926 3.8% Wholesale Trade 6,319 3.0% Other Services 4,796 2.3% Finance and Insurance 4,502 2.2% Transportation and Warehousing 2,609 1.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2,182 1.0% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2,063 1.0% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,250 0.6% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1,249 0.6% Federal Government 947 0.5% Utilities 289 0.1% Mining 113 0.1% Total 208,875 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 40

Table 2 Employment Sectors Ranked by Numeric Change: Utah County

Numeric 2001 2013 Change % Chg Health Care and Social Assistance 13,922 24,130 10,208 42.30% Educational Services 30,298 39,001 8,703 22.30% Professional Scientific & Technical Services 8,628 13,915 5,287 38.00% Retail Trade 19,317 24,316 4,999 20.60% Accommodation and Food Services 9,821 13,950 4,129 29.60% Construction 10,864 14,889 4,025 27.00% Administrative Services for Businesses 8,467 11,098 2,631 23.70% Information 7,627 9,675 2,048 21.20% Wholesale Trade 4,174 5,621 1,447 25.70% Finance and Insurance 3,449 4,570 1,121 24.50% Other Services (except Public Admin.) 3,596 4,628 1,032 22.30% Public Administration 4,826 5,769 943 16.30% Transportation and Warehousing 2,974 3,837 863 22.50% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,614 2,260 646 28.60% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 3,022 3,544 522 14.70% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 838 1,140 302 26.50% Utilities 489 579 90 15.50% Mining 71 103 32 31.10% Unclassified establishments 26 10 -16 -160.00% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,398 1,060 -338 -31.90% Manufacturing 19,470 17,484 -1,986 -11.40% Total 154,891 201,579 46,688 23.2% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Table 3 Major Employers in Utah County

Company Name Employees NAICS Sector Brigham Young University 15,000 to 19999 Higher Education Alpine School District 5,000-6,999 Public Education Utah Valley Regional Hospital 4,000-4,999 Health Care Utah Valley University 3,000-3,999 Higher Education Wal-Mart 2,000-2,999 Retail Provo School District 1,000-1,999 Public Education IM Flash 1,000-1,999 Manufacturing Nestle Prepared Food 1,000-1,999 Manufacturing

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 41

Table 4 Nonfarm Employment in Utah County

Employment 2000 152,699 2001 154,054 2002 151,802 2003 152,878 2004 160,189 2005 167,938 2006 176,810 2007 186,053 2008 184,882 2009 175,388 2010 174,639 2011 181,056 2012 190,111 2013 201,435 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Figure 3 Nonfarm Employment in Utah County

210,000 200,000 190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 42

Table 5 Counties Ranked by Absolute Change in Nonfarm Employment

Absolute Percent Rank County 2000 2013 Change Chg. 1 Salt Lake 545,153 623,791 78,638 14.4% 2 Utah 152,699 200,057 47,358 31.0% 3 Davis 84,846 111,831 26,985 31.8% 4 Washington 33,579 51,942 18,363 54.7% 5 Cache 41,840 51,176 9,336 22.3% 6 Summit 15,228 21,994 6,766 44.4% 7 Weber 88,346 94,718 6,372 7.2% 8 Uintah 9,261 14,542 5,281 57.0% 9 Duchesne 4,764 9,359 4,595 96.5% 10 Tooele 11,130 15,333 4,203 37.8% 11 Wasatch 4,695 6,789 2,094 44.6% 12 Grand 4,165 5,391 1,226 29.4% 13 Sevier 7,187 8,049 862 12.0% 14 Juab 2,508 3,272 764 30.5% 15 Iron 14,070 14,790 720 5.1% 16 Kane 2,808 3,420 612 21.8% 17 Millard 3,515 4,030 515 14.7% 18 Beaver 1,886 2,381 495 26.2% 19 Garfield 2,175 2,654 479 22.0% 20 Morgan 1,565 1,884 319 20.4% 21 Rich 559 846 287 51.3% 22 San Juan 4,029 4,235 206 5.1% 23 Piute 242 270 28 11.6% 24 Daggett 468 466 -2 -0.4% 25 Wayne 1,091 1,059 -32 -2.9% 26 Sanpete 6,846 6,784 -62 -0.9% 27 Carbon 8,871 8,760 -111 -1.3% 28 Emery 3,606 3,477 -129 -3.6% 29 Box Elder 17,747 17,051 -696 -3.9% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Table 6 Unemployment Rate in Utah County

Unemployment Rate Year (Percent) 2000 2.9% 2001 4.1% 2002 5.8% 2003 5.3% 2004 4.8% 2005 4.0% 2006 2.8% 2007 2.5% 2008 3.3% 2009 7.4% 2010 8.0% 2011 6.6% 2012 5.2% 2013 4.3% Source: Utah Department of Workforce

Services.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 43

Table 7 Nonfarm Average Wage in Utah County – 2013 Average Sector Wage Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting $29,040 Mining $61,932 Utilities $66,204 Construction $37,380 Manufacturing $48,552 Wholesale Trade $75,804 Retail Trade $25,416 Transportation and Warehousing $41,664 Information $73,176 Finance and Insurance $55,668 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $30,588 Professional Scientific & Technical Services $57,156 Management of Companies and Enterprises $59,424 Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation $29,808 Education Services $28,548 Health Care and Social Assistance $36,144 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $13,380 Accommodation and Food Services $13,260 Other Services (except Public Admin.) $27,204 Public Administration $41,928 Unclassified establishments $32,064 Average for All Sectors $37,224

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Table 8 Households by Income in Utah County – 2013

Households by Income Households % Share Total households 146,644 100.0 Less than $10,000 7,658 5.2 $10,000 to $14,999 6,500 4.4 $15,000 to $24,999 11,388 7.8 $25,000 to $34,999 13,080 8.9 $35,000 to $49,999 21,450 14.6 $50,000 to $74,999 29,262 20.0 $75,000 to $99,999 23,442 16.0 $100,000 to $149,999 22,583 15.4 $150,000 to $199,999 6,021 4.1 $200,000 or more 5,260 3.6 Median household income (dollars) $60,172 Mean household income (dollars) $75,172

With earnings 128,916 87.9% Mean earnings (dollars) $72,195 With Social Security 27,875 19.0% Mean Social Security income (dollars) $19,097 With retirement income 18,927 12.9% Mean retirement income (dollars) $26,223

With Supplemental Security Income 4,609 3.1% Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) $9,713 With cash public assistance income 2,748 1.9% Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) $2,128 With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12 months 13,564 9.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table DP03.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 44

Table 9 Median Household Income in Utah County 2013 Dollars

Median Household Income 2000 $62,016 2005 $56,583 2006 $58,416 2007 $64,525 2008 $64,809 2009 $62,711 2010 $57,983 2011 $60,718 2012 $59,290 2013 $60,172 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 10 Average Wage Rate in Selected Counties

Average Wage State $41,148 Davis $39,600 Salt Lake $46,092 Utah $37,140 Washington $30,960 Weber $37,224 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Employment Forecast – Employment in Utah County has recovered from the recession. The total number of jobs in 2013 exceeded the pre-recession peak in 2007 by fifteen percent. In the last three years the percent change in employment has been 3.67 percent, 5.0 percent and 5.43 percent Figure 4. A reasonable annual projection for job growth in Utah County is 4.0 percent. At this rate of growth employment in the county would grow by 25,000 jobs from 2013 to 2016 and the county’s employment would increase from 201,500 in 2013 to 226,500 by 2016.

Figure 4 Percent Change in Employment in Utah County

5.28% 5.43% 6.0% 5.23% 5.00% 4.78% 4.84% 3.67% 4.0%

2.0% 0.89% 0.71% 0.0%

-0.63% -0.43% -2.0% -1.46%

-4.0% -5.14% -6.0%

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 45

Much of the rapid growth in employment in the county has occurred outside of the Provo-Orem area. Employment in these two cities is almost unchanged from the pre-recession peak of 2007. In contrast the cities of Lehi, Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs and Payson have all experienced employment gains of over twenty-five percent since 2007 Table 11.

Table 11 Employment Change for Consortium Cities

Percent 2007 2013 Change American Fork 15,270 17,749 16.2% Cedar Hills 485 762 57.1% Eagle Mountain 809 1,398 72.8% Highland 2,270 2,887 27.2% Lehi 9,947 17,201 72.9% Lindon 9,568 8,874 -7.3% Mapleton 1,298 1,325 2.1% Orem 49,528 48,688 -1.7% Payson 4,672 5,848 25.2% Pleasant Grove 7,242 6,821 -5.8% Provo 58,410 60,072 2.8% Salem 1,127 1,470 30.4% Santaquin 620 835 34.7% Saratoga Springs 381 2,117 455.6% Spanish Fork 10,400 10,853 4.4% Springville 11,898 11,152 -6.3% Utah County 186,050 200,152 7.6% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 46

IV. CURRENT HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS

This section examines the characteristics of the local rental market, presents estimates of the current rental inventory, vacancy and rental rates, a discussion of foreclosures in the local market, trends in housing prices and current conditions and outlook for the owner occupied market.

Rental Market Characteristics

Student Rental Market - The Utah County rental market is the most distinctive market in Utah due primarily to the large student population. Any overview of the local rental market should begin with a discussion of the student rental market. There are currently about 50,000 rental units in Utah County and off-campus student housing for BYU and Utah Valley University (UVU) account for over one quarter of all rental units. The student off-campus rental housing is estimated at 13,000 rental units. A very high percentage of the students attending BYU live off-campus. It is estimated that of the 30,000+ students at BYU about 25,000 live-off campus whereas most students at UVU are residents of Utah County and commute to campus. Of the 25,000 students enrolled at UVU it is estimated about 8,000 students live in off-campus housing.

Some large off-campus student housing projects have unique rental rates. Tenants rent bed spots rather than units. Rental contracts are signed for a bed spot either for a shared or private bedroom situation. This characteristic is unique to Utah County and does not occur in other counties with student populations; Salt Lake (University of Utah), Cache (Utah State University), Washington (Dixie College) and Sanpete (Snow College).

Student housing demand has also affected the type of structures in the rental market. Due to local resident opposition to high density rental properties developers have turned to condominiums as a housing alternative. Consequently, low-priced investor owned condominiums play a significant role in off-campus student housing. Just how many condominiums are in the student rental market is unknown but from demographic data, student enrollment and new construction statistics it appears that about 30-40 percent of new condominiums developed in recent years are in the rental market.

Another unique market characteristic is imposed by BYU and known commonly as “BYU approved housing”. All single undergraduates attending BYU and living off-campus are required to live in approved housing. Approved housing is confined to a portion of Provo City surrounding campus. Landlords and BYU off-campus housing office have agreed to a set of living standards for roommates and tenants.

In recent years the rental market in Utah County has benefited from the rapid demographic and economic growth of the county. This growth has been concentrated in northern Utah County and has created demand for new residential development, particularly large, traditional family apartment projects.

Non-student Rental Market – In 2010 in Utah County 31.7 percent of all occupied units were renter units. However, only two of eighteen cities in the county exceeded the countywide share of 31.7 percent renter occupied units; Provo at 58 percent and Orem at 37 percent Table 1 and Figure 5. These data indicate a highly uneven distribution of rental units in Utah County, a distribution that has persisted for some time. In both 1990 and 2000 the same cities had a disproportionate share of

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 47 rental housing. In the past decade the share of rental units in Orem has increased from 32.9 percent in 2000 to 37.6 percent in 2010. Table 1 Renter Occupied Units as Share of Total Occupied Units

1990 2000 2010 Alpine 15.2% 11.0% 16.4% American Fork 24.6% 22.1% 23.7% Cedar Hills 8.1% 4.6% 14.0% Eagle Mountain * 1.9% 13.8% Elk Ridge 12.8% 4.4% 7.9% Highland 5.9% 4.8% 8.7% Lehi 21.3% 18.5% 19.7% Lindon 12.6% 11.9% 15.2% Mapleton 11.6% 7.4% 11.4% Orem 32.1% 32.9% 37.6% Payson 22.0% 22.4% 22.3% Pleasant Grove 20.8% 22.2% 28.2% Provo 60.1% 57.4% 58.2% Salem 14.0% 12.6% 13.8% Santaquin 19.0% 14.0% 16.9% Saratoga Springs ** 7.0% 14.8% Spanish Fork 26.2% 21.5% 21.3% Springville 31.7% 26.2% 27.1% Utah County 37.3% 33.2% 31.7% *Incorporated in 1996. **Incorporated in 1997. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 5 Rental Share of Occupied Units by City

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 48

It is important to note a positive development; most cities have increased their share of rental housing over the past ten years. Affordable rental housing is the market segment with the greatest housing need. In most cases the increases have been in the 3 to 5 percent range, relatively small but in the right direction. Only Payson and Spanish Fork show no increase in the share of rental housing. The increase in the share of renter occupied units, however is not solely due to the development of new apartment communities but rather the rental of single family homes, condominiums and town homes.

Over the decade the number of renter occupied units in Utah County increased by 11,398 units. New construction of apartment units added 3,203 units or only 28 percent of all additional rental units Table 2. The remaining 72 percent was due to the rental of units originally intended for home ownership; condominiums, town homes, twin homes and single family homes.

Rental homes and condominiums played a much larger role in adding to rental units in Orem compared to Provo. In Orem sixty-two percent of the increase in rental units occurred in rental homes and condominiums whereas in Provo the share was 49 percent Table 2. In thirteen of the eighteen cities in the county less than 20 percent of the increase in renter occupied units was met by new apartment construction. The “shadow” rental market (rented homes and condominiums) has provided the rental alternative for many households. The consequence is low density rental neighborhoods in many suburban areas. In the past underlying this developing pattern is low levels of traditional apartment development, an indication of local resistant to high density rental housing for families. As will be discussed below apartment development in Utah County has entered a new era beginning in 2012 with the development large non-student market rate projects for families.

Table 2 New Apartments Units as a Percent of Increase in Renter Occupied Units

Renter Renter Occupied Units Occupied Units Absolute New Apt. New Apt.Units 2000 2010 Chg. Units as % of Chg. Alpine 182 392 210 12 5.7% American Fork 1,312 1,726 414 157 37.9% Cedar Hills 32 329 297 56 18.9% Eagle Mountain 10 707 697 16 2.3% Elk Ridge 18 46 28 0 0.0% Highland 87 307 220 0 0.0% Lehi 950 2,441 1,491 221 14.8% Lindon 231 383 152 3 2.0% Mapleton 107 232 125 0 0.0% Orem 7,697 9,695 1,998 767 38.4% Payson 819 1,128 309 13 4.2% Pleasant Grove 1,358 2,664 1,306 705 54.0% Provo 16,752 18,340 1,588 818 51.5% Salem 142 239 97 0 0.0% Santaquin 183 394 211 40 19.0% Saratoga Springs 19 651 632 92 14.6% Spanish Fork 1,189 1,928 739 132 17.9% Springville 1,564 2,308 744 158 21.2% Utah County 33,151 44,549 11,398 3,203 28.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 49

As mentioned nearly two thirds of rental housing in the county is located in Provo and Orem Figure 6. These two cities account for 38 percent of the population for the county. They clearly have a disproportionate share of the rental housing inventory. Of course, a significant number of the renters in these two cities are students living in off-campus housing. As noted the number of off- campus student housing units is estimated at 13,000 units. Excluding these units from the county rental inventory and assuming that a very high percentage of these units are located in Provo and Orem the adjusted nonstudent share of county rental units by city is shown in Figure 7. Even after the off-campus student housing adjustment Orem and Provo account for almost 50 percent of all rental housing in the county. It is not that other cities are unsuitable for rental housing due to market conditions, proximity to transportation networks or employment centers. These conditions are met in many cities in Utah County. The uneven distribution of rental housing in the county is often due to zoning ordinances reinforced by NIMBYism. The number of renters (population) is shown in Figure 8. Provo City has a renter population of 57,578, nearly seven times as high as Lehi City with 8,817 renters. Vineyard was not included because of the small size of the city. In 2010 the population of Vineyard was 139.

Figure 6 Share of Utah County Renter Households by City

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 50

Figure 7 Share of Utah County Renters by City for Nonstudent Rental Units

Figure 8 Renter Population by City

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 51

The concentration of rental units in a few cities in Utah County leads to a concentration of Section 8 voucher holders. Figure 9 shows the spatial distribution of voucher holders. The concentration of low income renter households in Provo and Orem has implications for the school district: (1) large share of students from low income households as inferred from student eligibility for free and reduced lunch Figure 10 (2) disproportionate share of minority students Figure 11 consequently (3) a disproportionate share of parents with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Figure 12, and (4) low test scores Figure 13. High concentrations of low income minority renters impede equity and opportunity for these low income renter households.

Figure 9 Section Eight Voucher Holders

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 52

Figure 10 Percent of Student Body Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch

Figure 11 Minority Share of Student Body in Public Education Schools

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 53

Figure 12 Share of Students with LEP Parents

Figure 13 UCAS Score of Public Schools

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 54

Another measure of the concentrations of low income renters is shown in the spatial distribution of rent assisted units Figure 14. Provo has the greatest concentration. Surprisingly Orem has several small, scattered public housing units but only one small tax credit project. Furthermore, there is only one tax credit project south of Provo.

Figure 14 Rent Assisted Units in Utah County

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 55

Construction Trends Since 2000 the average number of new non-student apartment units built over the 2000-2013 period is 340 units, roughly a one percent increase in the inventory annually. However new construction is not a good measure of demand since much of the rental housing demand in Utah County has been met by the shadow market (single-family homes, condominiums, etc.). Renter occupied housing data from the Census show that the rate of change in renter occupied housing units but 2000 to 2010 was three percent annually, approximately a 1,000 units a year. As noted above new apartment construction satisfied about one third of the demand for rental units. However, recent construction trends indicate an increasing role of new apartment construction in meeting demand. In the last few years the levels of construction have been well above the average and in 2014 permits hit a record high of 2,100 units Table 3. In 2014 new apartment construction was several times greater than any single year’s level since 2000.

Table 3 Apartment Construction in Utah County

Units 2000 223 2001 308 2002 300 2003 381 2004 476 2005 474 2006 560 2007 320 2008 76 2009 85 2010 274 2011 400 2012 431 2013 415 2014 2,100 Average 2000-2013 340 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah and Construction Monitor.

Development of Major Apartment Projects - From 1996 to 2013 there were twenty-six major apartment projects built in Utah County; all located in the northern half of Utah County with the exception of Outlook Apartments currently under construction in Springville. The development history shows several well-defined periods of development. Each period defined by a concentration of construction activity by type of development; market rate units, low income tax credit units and student rentals Table 4. The 1996-1999 period featured six market rate projects with a total of 1,038 units. The second period from 1999-2001 saw the development of four LIHTC projects with a total of 624 units. The third period, a single year 2002, was completely dominated by the development of student rental housing. In 2002 five student rental projects, all located in Orem, began development. These five projects have 535 units and 2,638 beds. There has not been a student project developed since the 2002-2004 period with the exception of on-campus housing at BYU. From 2004 to 2011 only one apartment project was developed; a tax credit apartment community in Pleasant Grove. From 2011 through 2014 new apartment development has included eight market rate projects including the record level of new apartment construction in 2014.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 56

Table 4 Development Chronology of Major Apartment Projects – 1996 to 2013

Year Built Units Type Country Springs Orem 1996 164 Market Rate Cortland Ridge Orem 1997 144 Market Rate Pinnacle at Canyon View Orem 1998 228 Market Rate Thorneberry Pleasant Grove 1998 180 Market Rate Village Park Orem 1998 192 Market Rate Oakhurst Orem 1999 128 Market Rate Bay Harbor Provo 1999 60 LIHTC Mayflower Lehi 1999 192 LIHTC Boulder Point Provo 2001 96 LIHTC Boulder Springs (Rehab) Provo 2001 276 LIHTC Wolverine Crossing Orem 2002 258 Student Summerwood Orem 2002 69 Student Ventana Orem 2002 104 Student Village on the Park Orem 2002 72 Student Winter Haven Orem 2002 32 Student Pleasant Springs Pleasant Grove 2004 252 Market Rate Green Grove Pleasant Grove 2007 168 LIHTC Aldara Saratoga Springs 2011 240 Market Rate Sienna Villas Orem 2012 231 Market Rate Crest Haven Lehi 2013 344 Market Rate In Lease-up Undercnst 2013-14 Seasons at Traverse Mountain Lehi 2014 Market Rate Viewpointe Pleasant Grove 2014 Market Rate Residences at Mayfield Pleasant Grove 2014 Market Rate Outlook Springville 2014 Concord Vineyard 2014 Market Rate The Alloy Vineyard 2014 Market Rate Source: James Wood.

Rental Market Conditions

(1) Demographic growth in Utah County is consistently strong even during years of recession. A strong rental market depends on demographic growth of the market area. Since 2000 the average annual growth rate of the Utah County population is 3.1 percent however, in recent years growth has slowed. Nevertheless, Utah County has the highest population growth of the four Wasatch Front Counties and is significantly higher than the 2 percent growth for the state over the same period. The 2013 population of the county was 551,891 Table 5. In 2013 the number of households in the county was 152,000.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 57

Table 5 Change in Population in Utah County

2000 371,811 2001 385,671 2002 397,190 2003 406,158 2004 416,220 2005 430,697 2006 448,296 2007 469,574 2008 487,615 2009 504,801 2010 519,605 2011 530,126 2012 539,888 2013 551,891 AAGR 3.1 AAGR = Avg. Annual Growth Rate Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget.

(2) Net in-migration is increasing. One of the most important determinants of housing demand is net in-migration. Households that move into an area require a housing unit. The inventory must expand to accommodate the increased demand. In 2013 the net in-migration for Utah County was 2,138 people Table 6. Assuming an average household size of three this net in-migration creates demand for 700 additional housing units. But in 2014 population estimates show a net out- migration in Utah County. If true demand for housing will be reduced by about 300 units.

Table 6 Net In-Migration in Utah County

Net-in Migration 2010 786 2011 1,374 2012 756 2013 2,297 2014 -840 Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget.

(3) Employment growth has been very strong. The total number of jobs in Utah County is 208,000 in the third quarter of 2014 Table 7. The job growth has been remarkable since 2010. Over the past three years the average annual growth rate in jobs has been 4.6 percent. In 2013 the number of jobs in the county increased by 10,000. Job growth is essential for a healthy rental market. The current unemployment rate in the county is low 3.4 percent, an indication of a strong job market.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 58

Table 7 Employment Change in Utah County

Year County 2000 152,699 2001 154,056 2002 151,806 2003 152,878 2004 160,201 2005 167,938 2006 176,813 2007 186,050 2008 184,849 2009 175,387 2010 174,642 2011 181,044 2012 190,112 2013 200,057 2014 3rd Qtr 208,000 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.

(4) Rental rates are increasing and affordability declining. From 2011 to 2013 rental rates in Utah County increased at 4 percent a year. In 2014 rental rate increases accelerated to 7.6 percent over 2013. The rapid rise in rental rates is affecting housing affordability in Utah County Table 8.

Table 8 Rents in Utah County - 2013

Rent Rent % Increase 2013 2014 In Rent One Bedroom $693 $755 9.0% Two Bedroom One Bath $685 $756 10.4% Two Bedroom Two Bath $953 $959 0.6% Three Bedroom Two Bath $975 $1,014 4.3% Overall $807 $868 7.6% Source: Equimark.

(5) Vacancy below 5 percent. The current vacancy rate of 3.6 percent indicates a favorable market for new development Table 9. Table 9 Rental Vacancy Rate in Utah County - January Vacancy Rate 2005 8.7 2006 7.1 2007 3.8 2008 3.6 2009 5.7 2010 7.0 2011 5.5 2012 5.0 2013 3.2 2014 4.4 2015 3.6 Source: Equimark.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 59

(6) The market was not overbuilt at year-end 2014. Since 2010 the development of non-student rental housing has added about 1.3 percent annually to the rental inventory. The recent rate of construction has not destabilized the market. Since 2010 there have been 2,208 new apartment units built and completed in the county Table 10.

Table 10 New Non-Student Apartment Unit Construction in Utah County Apartment Units 2010 274 2011 400 2012 431 2013 415 2014 688 Total 2,208 Source: Construction Monitor.

(7) There are twenty large projects under construction which will temporarily weaken market conditions in 2015-16. An indicator of favorable market conditions is the development of several large apartment projects in the county. The development of apartment projects has been driven by (1) rapid economic growth of the county (2) low vacancy rates; and (3) scarcity of large, high amenity, market rate non-student projects. The twenty large projects under construction have a total of 3,137 units, about six percent of the rental inventory Table 11. The timeline from issuing building permit to completion can be as much as two years. The projects under construction are in various stages of construction but will all reach the market over the next 24 months. This relatively high level of new construction will slow rental rate increases and will cause a temporary uptick in the vacancy rate, pushing the vacancy rate to 5.5 to 6.0 percent.

Table 11 Apartment Projects Under Construction in Utah County Project Address City Units Type Lofts at Ivory Ridge 3200 North Center Street Lehi 45 Family Market Rate Seasons at Traverse Mtn. 4200 North Seasons View Lehi 260 Family Market Rate Avalon Senior Living 175 North State Street Lindon 90 Senior Market Rate Monte Vista Phase I 905 North State Street Orem 131 Family Market Rate Legacy Apartments 1450 South State Street Orem 180 Family Market Rate Center Street Apartments 73 North Orem Blvd Orem 112 Family Market Rate Sun Canyon Plaza 460 South State Street Orem 84 Family Market Rate Summit Ridge 1675 South 400 East Orem 72 Family Market Rate Midtown Village 320 South State Orem 160 Family Market Rate Aston Court Ph I University Mall Orem 231 Family Market Rate Residences at Mayfield 2275 West 250 North Pleasant Grove 214 Family Market Rate Viewpointe 165 North 1650 West Pleasant Grove 288 Family Market Rate Maplewood 641 South 350 East Pleasant Grove 36 Family Market Rate Grove Crest Villas 488 West Center Pleasant Grove 162 Senior Market Rate St. Francis Apartments 500 West 200 North Provo 42 Senior Tax Credit 63 Apartments 63 East Center Street Provo 41 Family Market Rate Start-Up Crossing 575 South Freedom Blvd Provo 101 Family Market Rate Outlook Apartments 664 South 2600 West Springville 260 Family Market Rate The Alloy Apartments 100 South Geneva Road Vineyard 324 Family Market Rate Concord Crossing 125 North Mill Road Vineyard 304 Family Market Rate Total 3,137 Source: Survey of cities, Equimark and James Wood.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 60

Owner Occupied Housing in Utah County and Consortium Cities

The housing inventory for most of the consortium cities is heavily dominated by owner occupied units. Of course the significant exceptions are Provo and Orem. In Provo owner occupied units represent only 42 percent of the housing inventory and in Orem, while considerably higher, owner occupied unit are only 62.4 percent of the housing inventory. Of the remaining fourteen consortium cities the share of owner occupied units in nine cities is over eighty percent. In Highland 91 percent of the housing inventory is owner occupied units Tables 12 and 13. In 2010 sixty-eight percent of housing units were owner occupied.

Table 12 Owner Occupied Units as Share of Total Occupied Housing Units in Consortium Cities

1990 2000 2010 American Fork 75.4% 77.9% 76.3% Cedar Hills 91.9% 95.4% 86.0% Eagle Mountain 98.1% 86.2% Highland 94.1% 95.2% 91.3% Lehi 78.7% 81.5% 80.3% Lindon 87.4% 88.1% 84.8% Mapleton 88.4% 92.6% 88.6% Orem 67.9% 67.1% 62.4% Payson 78.0% 77.6% 77.7% Pleasant Grove 79.2% 77.8% 71.6% Provo 39.9% 42.6% 41.8% Salem 86.0% 87.4% 86.2% Santaquin 81.0% 86.0% 83.1% Saratoga Springs 93.0% 85.2% Spanish Fork 73.8% 78.5% 78.7% Springville 68.3% 73.8% 72.9% Consortium Cities 62.7% 66.8% 68.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 13 Owner Occupied Units in Consortium Cities

1990 2000 2010 American Fork 3,090 4,622 5,548 Cedar Hills 148 663 2,026 Eagle Mountain 522 4,404 Highland 935 1,717 3,240 Lehi 1,853 4,175 9,961 Lindon 767 1,704 2,135 Mapleton 789 1,335 1,807 Orem 11,934 15,685 16,121 Payson 1,992 2,835 3,929 Pleasant Grove 2,743 4,751 6,717 Provo 9,501 12,440 13,184 Salem 492 986 1,498 Santaquin 533 1,121 1,944 Saratoga Springs 252 3,736 Spanish Fork 2,401 4,345 7,141 Springville 2,864 4,411 6,223 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 61

Residential Construction Trends – Like almost all housing markets the Great Recession was devastating for the Utah County home building market. New home construction peaked in 2006 with 5,193 new homes but two years later new home construction had declined by 84 percent to 831 homes Table 14. While there has been some recovery over the past several years the level of construction is only about one-third the peak year. In 2014 1,770 new homes received building permits in consortium cities compared to the 5,193 in 2006. In home building no consortium city has returned to the pre-recession peak with the exception of Lindon.

Table 14 Permits Issued for Single Family Homes in Consortium Cities

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 American Fork 133 101 22 20 35 52 71 79 54 Cedar Hills 96 58 6 3 5 16 8 7 10 Eagle Mountain 845 616 92 150 149 58 149 233 260 Highland 275 144 27 15 45 59 74 82 84 Lehi 1,519 641 197 192 281 361 515 449 359 Lindon 28 116 33 13 20 27 19 34 52 Mapleton 66 69 30 30 35 38 64 81 62 Orem 156 101 28 44 60 46 54 71 94 Payson 74 70 19 50 53 30 20 40 41 Pleasant Grove 158 123 28 24 25 44 40 109 70 Provo 286 180 57 64 79 87 65 150 116 Salem 91 90 34 12 32 15 36 74 71 Santaquin 114 162 33 59 57 22 24 67 87 Saratoga Springs 580 420 96 119 184 185 261 264 192 Spanish Fork 566 297 103 222 111 73 86 156 164 Springville 206 196 26 73 80 54 84 99 54 Total 5,193 3,384 831 1,090 1,251 1,167 1,570 1,995 1,770 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

Real Estate Sales – For real estate agents the housing recovery has been much quicker than for the home builder. Homes sales in the county peaked in 2006 at 5,663 homes. Over the next two years sales dropped by 40 percent, half the rate of decline of home building. By 2014 the number of home sales in Utah County was 5,501, which is 97 percent of the level of sales in 2006. The real estate market for homes in Utah County has fully recovered from the recession Table 15 and Figure 15. Table 15 Sales of Single Family Homes

2000 2,876 2001 2,962 2002 3,353 2003 3,615 2004 4,244 2005 5,183 2006 5,663 2007 4,266 2008 3,442 2009 4,069 2010 3,873 2011 4,427 2012 4,754 2013 5,252 2014 5,501 Source: MLS Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 62

Figure 15 Sales of Single Family Homes in Utah County

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

Housing Prices and Affordability - The last nine years have been a wild ride for housing prices. Never has the local real estate industry experienced such volatility Table 16 and Figure 16. From 2004 to 2007 the median sales price of a home increased by a stunning 51 percent in Utah County. By 2008 prices weakened and began a steady decline over the next four years. By 2011 the median sales price had dropped 21 percent in Utah County.

In 2012 prices finally turned as the median sales price of an existing home rose by almost five percent to $202,000. And by 2013 housing prices in Utah County were within six percent of the 2007 peak and the gap was closed with the six percent gain in 2014 bringing housing prices back to their pre-recession peak.

Table 16 Median Price of Homes Sold Utah County % Chg. 2000 $149,910 2001 $154,000 2.7% 2002 $156,900 1.9% 2003 $156,000 -0.6% 2004 $162,000 3.8% 2005 $178,500 10.2% 2006 $218,000 22.1% 2007 $245,900 12.8% 2008 $235,000 -4.4% 2009 $222,600 -5.3% 2010 $208,825 -6.2% 2011 $193,000 -7.6% 2012 $202,000 4.7% 2013 $229,900 13.8% 2014 $243,590 6.0% Source: Wasatch Front Region MLS.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 63

Figure 16 Median Sales Price of Homes Sold in Utah County

$265,000 $245,000 $225,000 $205,000 $185,000 $165,000 $145,000 $125,000

Utah County

The median sales price for each of the consortium cities for the 2007 to 2014 shows a similar pattern. Most cities have nearly recovered from the effects of the Great Recession. In Saratoga Springs prices are actually above the 2007 level Table 17.

Table 17 Median Sales Price of Homes in Consortium Cities Peak 2007, Trough 2012, Current 2014

Peak Trough Present 2007 2012 2014 American Fork $245,200 $186,525 $239,250 Cedar Hills $349,950 $256,500 $292,100 Eagle Mountain $219,950 $180,000 $221,000 Highland $507,915 $403,000 $468,000 Lehi $278,350 $226,609 $280,000 Lindon $400,000 $272,900 $315,000 Mapleton $385,000 $308,400 $339,900 Orem $224,900 $178,000 $210,000 Payson $210,000 $155,800 $193,500 Pleasant Grove $257,750 $199,500 $239,200 Provo $209,900 $168,968 $209,250 Salem $297,450 $225,618 $293,000 Santaquin $218,000 $162,250 $202,700 Saratoga Springs $270,700 $230,786 $284,000 Spanish Fork $225,000 $176,000 $213,500 Springville $219,000 $180,892 $211,500 Utah County $245,900 $202,000 $243,900 Source: Wasatch Front Regional MLS.

The Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) is defined “as the share or percentage of homes sold in that area that would have been affordable to a family earning the local median income, based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. Currently the HOI in the Provo-Orem MSA is 49.3. Therefore forty nine percent of the homes sold in the MSA were affordable to a family earning the median income in the MSA. A fifty percent HOI indicates “balance” between prices and income. Half the homes are affordable to half the families. The MSA is very close to balance. From Figure Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 64

17 it is apparent that affordability plunged during the housing boom, dropping to under 30 percent in 2007. But with the ensuing decline in prices and interest rates affordability has been at very high levels since 2009 however, in the last quarter of 2014 affordability declined due to rising prices.

Figure 17 Quarterly Housing Opportunity Index for Provo-Orem MSA

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0

2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. Figures 18 and 19 show the assessed value of homes throughout the county. Low priced affordable homes under $200,000 are spread throughout the county. With the exception of a few cities in the extreme northeast corner of the county there appear to be affordable owner occupied opportunities throughout the county. Figure 18 Assessed Value of Homes in Utah County

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 65

Figure 19 Homes Valued at Greater than $250,000

A home with a sales price of $250,000 or less is affordable to a household at 80 percent of AMI. Nine of the 16 consortium cities have affordable home owner opportunities for moderate to low income households. The least affordable consortium city is Highland. The most affordable city is Payson Table 18. Table 18 Consortium Cities by Affordability: Least to Most

Median

Sales Price Highland $468,000 Mapleton $339,900 Lindon $315,000 Salem $293,000 Cedar Hills $292,100 Saratoga Springs $284,000 Lehi $280,000 Affordable Housing Cities for Household at =<80% AMI American Fork $239,250 Pleasant Grove $239,200 Eagle Mountain $221,000 Spanish Fork $213,500 Springville $211,500 Orem $210,000 Provo $209,250 Santaquin $202,700 Payson $193,500 Source: Wasatch Front Regional MLS.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 66

Foreclosures –The sale of foreclosed REO properties accelerated rapidly over the three year period from 2009 to 2011. In 2011 nearly twenty percent of all home sales in Utah County were foreclosed properties. These REO sales put severe downward pressure on housing prices. Fortunately the number of foreclosure sales declined in 2012 by almost one third dropping to 587 sales; twelve percent of all home sales Table 18. Substantial improvement was recorded in 2013 as foreclosure sales dropped by two-thirds to 205 sales and 3.9 percent of all home sales. In 2014 there was a slight uptick of foreclosures with 266 REO sales, 4.5 percent of all home sales. Unlike many large urban areas or high growth southwest cites Utah County did not experience any significant neighborhood devastation from foreclosures.

Table 18 REO/Foreclosure Sales of Single Family Home in Utah County

Total REO Home Sales Sales % REO 2005 61 5,183 1.2% 2006 18 5,663 0.3% 2007 8 4,226 0.2% 2008 64 3,442 1.9% 2009 317 4,069 7.8% 2010 589 3,872 15.2% 2011 867 4,472 19.4% 2012 587 4,753 12.4% 2013 205 5,250 3.9% 2014 266 5,501 4.8% Source: Wasatch Front Regional MLS.

REO data for homes, condominiums and town homes for each consortium city is shown in Table 19. In both Lehi and Eagle Mountain nineteen percent of home sales were REO sales. These two communities were hit particularly hard by falling prices and the weak economy. By 2014 REO sales had dropped substantially for all consortium cities. Only 4.4 percent of home sales in the consortium cities were REO sales. Table 19 Sales of Foreclosed Homes, Condominiums and Townhomes as Percent of Total Sales in Consortium Cities

% of % of Homes Homes 2010 Sold 2014 Sold American Fork 23 9.7% 11 3.0% Cedar Hills 16 15.7% 7 6.0% Eagle Mountain 83 19.2% 37 5.2% Highland 29 17.1% 5 3.1% Lehi 133 19.0% 23 2.2% Lindon 10 16.4% 3 4.1% Mapleton 6 11.3% 4 3.7% Orem 77 12.1% 45 5.2% Payson 28 16.2% 18 7.3% Pleasant Grove 45 14.8% 20 4.6% Provo 88 13.3% 43 5.1% Salem 10 18.5% 6 6.0% Santaquin 15 15.2% 12 6.9% Saratoga Springs 56 15.3% 20 3.2% Spanish Fork 35 10.4% 30 5.2% Springville 35 12.7% 22 5.7% Utah County 718 14.7% 317 4.4% Source: Wasatch Front Region MLS.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 67

Outlook for New Home Construction, Home Sales and Prices – Strong job growth combined with low interest rates will continue to boost consumer confidence leading to high home sales and home prices. During the recession, job loss and/or foreclosures forced many families to move-in with friends or family and double-up, which in turn reduced housing demand as households doubled-up with friends and family. Some of this lost demand will be returned to the market in 2015 making for strong demand for rental units and affordable homes. New home construction will likely reach 2,200 units and new apartment construction will be around 2,000 units. Real estate homes sales will increase by about 5 percent to nearly 6,000 units and the median sales price will also be up five percent to $257,000. Rental rate increases will moderate with the increase in new rental supply. Rental rates will be up less than 3 percent and the rental vacancy rate will increase from 3.6 percent to near 5 percent.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 68

V. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Affordable rental housing is the greatest housing need in Utah County. According to the 2007-2011 CHAS twenty percent of all renters in the county have incomes below 50 percent AMI and have a housing cost burden greater than 50 percent of their income, defined as severe cost burden. These very low income severely cost burdened renter households total 8,765 households. Only five percent of owners have income less than 50 percent AMI and are severely cost burdened. The number of very low income owner households with housing cost burdens greater than 50 percent of their income totals 4,750 households. In Provo City the number of very low income renter households (=<50% AMI) with severe housing cost burdens is 4,425 households, twenty-four percent of all renter households. Only 5.7 percent of all owners are very low income households with severe cost burdens. A total of 760 owner households. The number of very low income, cost burdened owners in Provo is only 10 percent of the number of very low income, cost burdened renters.

HUD is particularly interested in the housing opportunities and affordability for protected class. The largest protected class is minorities. Over half of all minority households rent and these households are more likely to be very low or extremely low income households. For instance, in Utah County nearly two-thirds of all black households are renters Table 1. In Provo City the share of black households that rent climbs to 79 percent Table 2. Policy measures that encourage additional affordable rental housing are the most effective in meeting the unmet housing needs of protected classes and affirmatively furthering fair housing. And conversely policy measures that limit or preclude the development of additional affordable rental housing are serious impediments to fair housing choice. Table 1 Renters by Race in Utah County

% Owner Renter Total Renters Tenure 96,053 44,549 140,602 31.7% White Alone 90,739 38,595 129,334 29.8% Black 197 354 551 64.2% American Indian 336 420 756 55.6% Asian 970 774 1,744 44.4% Pacific Islander 410 476 886 53.7% Other 2,418 2,869 5,287 54.3% Two or More 983 1,061 2,044 51.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 2 Renters by Race in Provo City % Owner Renter Total Renters Tenure 13,184 18,340 31,524 58.2% White Alone 11,983 15,750 27,733 56.8% Black 42 156 198 78.8% American Indian 65 166 231 71.9% Asian 219 441 660 66.8% Pacific Islander 94 192 286 67.1% Other 579 1,119 1,698 65.9% Two or More 202 516 718 71.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 69

The most critical unmet housing needs are concentrated in the very low and extremely low income households. These households comprise a significant share of the county’s population. One-in-four households in the county have incomes below 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Of the 149,000 households in Utah County in 2012, 37,250 were households with very low income; $31,900 or less for a family of four. There were over 22,000 households with extremely low income, approximately $19,140 or less for a family of four Table 3. Again these households are much more likely to be renter households of protected classes.

Table 3 Households by Income in Utah County - 2012 Category Households Households 149,000 Median Income Households 74,500 < 80% AMI Households 59,600 < 50% AMI Households 37,250 < 30% AMI Households 22,350 Occupied Housing Units 149,000 Owner Occupied Units 102,200 Renter Occupied Units 46,800 Source: Derived from the U.S. Census 2010.

Local and federal programs provide housing assistance for a number of very low and extremely low income households through Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, local housing authority’s public housing units and the low income housing tax credit program administered by the Utah Housing Corporation. Combined these programs provide over 5,000 rent assisted units to very low and extremely low income renter households in Utah County Table 4.

Table 4 Total Assisted Rental Units in Utah County - 2012 Number Total Vouchers All Types 1,934 Tax Credits Units 1,141 HUD Project Based Units 1,550 Public Housing Units 391 Total Assisted Units or Persons 5,016 Percent of All Renters Assisted 10.7% Source: Public Housing Authorities, HUD CHAS 2005-2009 and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

The supply of rent assisted units however, is far short of the need. The HUD CHAS for Utah County gives an estimate of nearly 8,765 renter households that are very low or extremely low income, with no rental assistance and severe housing cost burden. These very low income, severely cost burdened households include nearly 4,200 small related households, 895 large related households, 715 elderly households, and 2,960 “other” households. Presumably many of these “other” households are unrelated student. Subtracting these “other” households from the total of severely cost burdened and very low income households leaves at least 6,000 non-student households with very low incomes, severely cost burdened and no housing assistance. The need for affordable rental housing for these households is acute.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 70

Table 5 Very Low and Extremely Low Income Renter Households with Severe Housing Cost Burdens – Utah County

Renter

Households Total 8,765 Small related 4,195 Large related 895 Elderly 715 Other 2,960 Source: HUD CHAS 2007-2011.

When applied broadly to a housing market the phrase “affordable housing need” is somewhat vague but when applied to a narrow subgroup of owners and renters—very low and extremely low income households with severe housing problems—the need for affordable housing is no longer vague but apparent. The need is substantial. In Utah County there are 13,753 very low income households with severe housing problems; 4,988 owners and 8,765 renters Table 6.

Very low income households are defined as those households with income levels =< 50 percent AMI. Severe housing problems are defined as those housing units that have any one of the four following conditions: (1) a cost burden of at least 50 percent of income for housing and utilities, (2) incomplete kitchen facilities, (3) incomplete plumbing (4) more than 1.5 persons per room. One in eight owner households (11,420 households) have severe housing problems and over 40 percent, or 4,988 of these households are very low-income households.

For very low income renter households the need for affordable housing is even greater. Nearly one in three renter households have severe housing problems; a total of 12,010 households. Three quarters of these renter households with severe housing problems are very low income households. There are 1,765 very low-income minority households that have severe housing problems and 1,355 of these minority households are Hispanics. About 5 percent of all renters are very low-income minority renters with severe housing problems. None of the renter households with severe housing problems have any government housing or rental assistance.

Table 6 Owner and Renter Households with Severe Housing Problems by Race and Ethnicity Utah County

Owners Renters Total Households % Share Households % Share Households % Share Total Households 94,190 100.0% 41,480 100.0% 135,670 100.0% With Severe Housing Problems (SHP)* 11,420 12.1% 12,010 29.0% 23,430 17.3% Very Low Income (VLI) with SHP** 4,988 5.3% 8,765 21.0% 13,753 10.4% VLI Whites with SHP 4,055 4.3% 7,000 17.2% 11,195 8.3% VLI Minorities with SHP 933 1.0% 1,765 4.9% 2,978 2.2% VLI Hispanics with SHP 705 0.7% 1,355 3.3% 2,060 1.5% *Severe housing problems = any one of the following four conditions; incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%. **VLI = very low income households =<50% area median family income. Source: HUD CHAS Data Table 2. Derived from ACS 2006-2010.

The number of renter households with severe housing problems and severe cost burdens by city is shown in Table 7. Highland and Provo have the highest percentage of renters with severe housing problems at 38 percent each, much higher than the countywide average of 29 percent. Keep in mind Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 71 that a household with severe housing problems can have any one of four conditions mentioned above. The most prevalent is a severe cost burden defined as paying more than 50 percent of income for housing. Of course very low-income renter households are much more likely to have severe cost burdens. In Utah County there are 17,350 very low-income renter households (households =< 50% AMI) Table 8. More than half of these households are paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing.

Table 7 Renters with Severe Housing Problems and Severe Cost Burdens

% of Total VLI Renters % of VLI Renters with Renters with Renters with Severe Housing with Severe Severe Cost Severe Cost Problems* Housing Problems Burdens** Burdens Utah County 12,010 29.0% 8,280*** 50.6% Orem 2,510 25.8% 1,945 54.0% Provo 6,715 37.7% 4,565 50.0% American Fork 365 23.4% 265 66.3% Cedar Hills 35 24.1% 35 70.0% Eagle Mountain 75 19.5% 60 85.7% Highland 125 38.5% 75 71.4% Lehi 370 19.0% 230 48.9% Lindon 100 26.3% 90 60.0% Mapleton 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Payson 220 20.7% 125 37.9% Pleasant Grove 520 22.3% 360 62.1% Salem 75 32.6% 15 37.5% Santaquin 50 14.5% 10 16.7% Spanish Fork 330 16.5% 185 33.6% Springville 370 19.7% 235 39.8% *Severe housing problems = any one of the following four conditions; incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%. **VLI = very low income households >=50% area median family income. Severe cost burden is greater than 50% of income for housing. ***These county numbers differ slightly for data in Table 5 due to different time periods. Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS (2006-2010) data using HUD CHAS Query Tool.

Table 8 Income Distribution of Renters in Utah County

Renter % Share Households of Renters <= 30% HAMFI 8,455 19.7% 30% to <= 50% HAMFI 8,895 20.7% >50% to <= 80% HAMFI 11,030 25.7% Above 80% HAMFI 14,045 32.8% Total 42,875 100.0% Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS (2007-2011)data using HUD CHAS Query Tool.

Estimates by Renters and Owner by Cost Burden, Income and Household Type - Estimates of small and large households (familial status) and elderly (while not a protected class, half of all elderly 75+ years are disabled, which is a protected class) show that many very low income households in these demographic groups have severe housing problems. Again, the incidence of severe housing problems is much greater for renter households, particularly extremely low-income households. The three-hundred and twenty-five extremely low-income, elderly renter households with severe housing

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 72 problems undoubtedly include a fair number of disabled elderly renters Table 9. Of the 615 extremely low-income (=<30% AMI), large related renter households at least 40 percent (nearly 250 households) are minority households. Large, minority families are more likely to be renter households.

In Provo there are 4,425 (3,390 + 1,035 = 4,425) very low income renter households (=<50% AMI) with severe cost burdens. These households have no rental assistance and have limited affordable housing opportunities. Subtracting the “other” category, which is likely comprised of a large number of student households, still leaves at least 2,500 severely cost burdened, very low and extremely low income renters in Provo.

Table 9 Owner and Renter Households with Severe Cost Burden (> =50%) by Tenure and Household Type, Utah County <30% 30%-50% 50%-80% AMI AMI AMI Total Owner Households 95,925 Small Related 830 895 1,155 2,880 Large Related 650 800 690 2,140 Elderly 425 445 495 1,365 Other 405 300 185 890 Total 2,310 2,440 2,525 7,275 Renter Households 42,875 Small Related 3,210 985 210 4,405 Large Related 615 280 80 975 Elderly 325 390 105 820 Other 1,965 995 165 3,125 Total 6,115 2,650 560 9,325 Severe housing cost burden = household pays more than 50% of income for housing Source: Data from HUD CPD Maps tool.

Table 10 Owner and Renter Households with Severe Cost Burden (> =50%) by Tenure and Household Type, Provo City

<30% 30%-50% 50%-80% AMI AMI AMI Total Owner Households 13,415 Small Related 105 145 45 295 Large Related 50 160 60 270 Elderly 45 55 75 175 Other 150 55 40 245 Total 350 415 220 985 Renter Households 18,160 Small Related 1,900 255 60 2,215 Large Related 155 20 4 179 Elderly 40 100 15 155 Other 1,295 660 145 2,100 Total 3,390 1,035 224 4,649 Severe housing cost burden = household pays more than 50% of income for housing Source: Data from HUD CPD Maps tool.

Again, using the HUD Community Planning and Development mapping tool the housing needs by income, tenure and household type were determined for the other two entitlement cities; Orem and Lehi. The group with the greatest housing need was determined to be the very low and extremely

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 73 low income renters with severe housing cost burdens. Data on need for this group are presented in Tables 11 and 12. These estimates are derived from the 2007-2011 ACS data.

In Orem twenty-one percent of all renter households are low and extremely low income renter households with severe housing cost burdens (2,015 very low income renters/ total 9,715 renters = 20.7%). The total number of renter households in this group is 2,015 (1,310 + 705 = 2,105). Only six percent of owners fall into the category of very low to extremely low income with severe cost burdens; a total of 1,005 households Table 11.

Table 11 Owner and Renter Households with Severe Cost Burden (> =50%) by Tenure and Household Type, Orem City

<30% 30%-50% 50%-80% AMI AMI AMI Total Owner Households 16,585 Small Related 190 145 200 535 Large Related 145 205 80 430 Elderly 135 95 145 375 Other 60 30 35 125 Total 530 475 460 1,465 Renter Households 9,715 Small Related 505 365 20 890 Large Related 275 45 15 335 Elderly 120 50 35 205 Other 410 245 10 665 Total 1,310 705 80 2,095 Severe housing cost burden = household pays more than 50% of income for housing Source: Data from HUD CPD Maps tool.

In Lehi 13.3 percent or 260 renters are very low and extremely low income renters with severe housing cost burdens (260 very low income renters/1,955 total renters = 13.3 percent) Table 12.

Table 12 Owner and Renter Households with Severe Cost Burden (> =50%) by Tenure and Household Type, Lehi City

<30% 30%-50% 50%-80% AMI AMI AMI Total Owner Households 9,735 Small Related 75 175 235 485 Large Related 110 30 90 230 Elderly 14 45 45 104 Other 15 65 45 125 Total 214 315 415 944 Renter Households 1,955 Small Related 85 70 -- 155 Large Related 40 10 20 70 Elderly -- -- 20 20 Other 45 10 -- 55 Total 170 90 40 300 Severe housing cost burden = household pays more than 50% of income for housing Source: Data from HUD CPD Maps tool.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 74

Figures 20-22 show the share of affordable housing need met by the current rental inventory. These maps were developed from HUD data provided for the Sustainable Communities grant 2011-2014. Figure 20 shows the percent of need met by the rental inventory for renters with incomes at 50% to 80% AMI. This maps show a surplus of affordable rental units in this price range in Provo (167.1%) but for most other cities there is a deficit. Figure 21 show percent of need met for households =< 50% AMI. Provo again has a surplus affordable units. Provo has a shortage of rental units for the extremely low income renter households as shown in Figure 22. Provo meets 58 percent of the affordable rental needs of this income group. All other cities have very large deficit for this extremely low income renter group.

Figure 20 Share of Affordable Housing Need Met by Current Rental Inventory 50%-80% AMI

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 75

Figure 21 Share of Affordable Housing Need Met by Current Rental Inventory < 50% AMI

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 76

Figure 22 Share of Affordable Housing Need Met by Current Rental Inventory < 30% AMI

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 77

Overcrowding – Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room. About 2.5 percent to 3 percent of renter households have overcrowding but less than one percent of owner households. Overcrowding does not appear to be a serious problem for single family households.

Table 13 Overcrowding in Very Low and Extremely Low Income Single Family Households

% of % of Renter Total Owner Total Households Renters Households Owners Utah County 1,080 2.5% 225 0.20% Provo 490 2.7% 40 0.03% Orem 360 3.7% 40 1.4% Lehi 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Source: HUD CDP Mapping Tool.

Homeless Households – Homeless estimates are made for the three county Mountainland Association of Government (AOG). The Mountainland AOG is comprised of Utah, Wasatch and Summit Counties. Ninety percent of the population of the AOG lives in Utah County. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that nearly all of the homeless households in the AOG are located in Utah County. The number of homeless households in the AOG has declined from 292 in 2011 to only 93 household in 2014 Table 14. Of these ninety-three homeless households only twenty-seven were unsheltered and only one of these unsheltered households had a minor present. There were twenty one homeless households with a minor present in sheltered facilities. The most recent (January 2014) point-in-time headcount of chronically homeless persons in Utah County counted only six individuals with five sheltered and one sheltered. The very low number of chronically homeless is in sharp contrast to Salt Lake County, which has a chronically homeless population of over 300 individuals.

Table 14 Homeless Households by Type in Mountainland AOG – 2014

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014 Family of adult and minor 30 16 21 21 Sheltered Households only children 0 9 7 0 Households no children 72 34 48 45 Total 102 59 76 66

Family of adult and minor 2 2 6 1 Households only children 0 0 0 0 Unsheltered Households no children 188 71 95 26 Total 190 73 101 27 Family of adult and minor 32 18 27 22 Households only children 0 9 7 0 Total Households no children 260 105 143 71 Total 292 132 177 93 Source: Utah Division of Community and Housing.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 78

VITA

JAMES A. WOOD

P.O. Box 58107 Salt Lake City, Utah 84158

Phone: (801) 581-7165 (office), fax (801) 581-3354 (801) 583-0392 (residence)

EDUCATION University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; B.S. Finance, June 1967. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Graduate Student in Economics, 1970-1974.

MILITARY EXPERIENCE United States Army, Military Intelligence 1968-1970; Vietnam 1969-1970.

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 2002 to present, Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. 1975 to 2002, Senior Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1975 to present, private consultant, James A Wood & Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1974-1975 - Legislative Aide on economic issues for Senator Frank E. Moss, Washington, D.C. 1972-1974 - Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1970 (summer) - Accountant, Jacobsen Construction Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1966-1967 - Accountant, Utah Idaho Sugar Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Trustees Downtown Alliance Salt Lake City. Committee Member of Revenue Assumption Working Group, State of Utah. Board Member of NeighborWorks Salt Lake City President of Wasatch Economic Forum 2008-2009 Advisory Board Member of the Salt Lake County Housing Trust Fund 2009-2014 Board Member Salt Lake Home Builders Association Member Salt Lake County Consortium Housing (HOME) Committee

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS “The Great Recession: Utah’s Home Building and Real Estate Sectors”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 74, Number 2, Summer 2014.

Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Grant 2011-2014. Grant awarded to Salt Lake County and a research team composed of six participants including the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. The Regional Analysis of Impediments and Fair Housing

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 79

Equity Assessment for 65 municipalities and four counties was completed by a four-person team at the Bureau of Economic and Business Research under the direction of James Wood. Purpose of the grant was to improve the regional integration of housing, transportation and economic development to enhance access to opportunities.

"Salt Lake County Real Estate Market: Current Conditions and Forecast for 2012” Volume 71 Number 4, Winter 2011.

“Nonresidential Construction: Past, Present and Future”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 70 Number 2, Summer 2010.

“Utah’s Home Building Industry: Recovery and Challenges”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 70 Number 1, Spring 2010.

Residential and Nonresidential Construction Trends and Forecast for Utah and Wasatch Front Counties. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Summit Materials, May 2010.

Utah’s Sports Sector: Economic Activity and Impact. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Sports Commission. February 2010.

“Utah’s Housing Market: Present Perspective, Future Prospects”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 69 Number 1, Spring 2009.

A Review of the Proposed Home Run Grant Program, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Housing Action Coalition. February 2009.

Economic Impact of Bonding for Capital Facilities in Utah, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Commissioner’s Office of Higher Education. January 2009.

The Economic Impact of Thanksgiving Point on the Utah County Economy. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Thanksgiving Point Foundation. November 2008.

Foreclosures in Utah Likely to Hit Record. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Foreclosure Prevention Taskforce, October 2008.

Economic Baseline Study for Vernal and Ashley Valley, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Tightline Community Resources, September 2008.

Pathways Project: A Study of the Cost of Services for Chronically Homeless Individuals in Salt Lake County. Funded by Utah State Department of Community and Culture, August 2008

The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of the Davis County Economy, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Davis County Community and Economic Development, June 2007.

Competitive Role of Commercial Development at West Bench, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land. January 2007. Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 80

An Analysis of the Land Use and Value of Weber State University’s Mountainside Parcel, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Weber State University. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. December 2006.

The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of Draper City, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Draper City Office of Economic Development. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. September 2006.

West Bench Economic Impact: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Analysis, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land. Co-authored with Pam Perlich. October 2005.

Economic Impact of Affordable Housing: Construction, Rehabilitation and Assistance Programs, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah Housing Coalition, September 2004.

“The Utah Economy: Outlook and Review”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 64, Numbers 1 and 2, January/December 2004.

Affordable Housing in Utah Cities: New Construction, Building Fees and Zoning. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Fannie Mae Utah Partnership Office, Utah Housing Corporation, Envision Utah and The Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund, June 2003.

Changing Economic Structure of Salt Lake City=s Central Business District, 1990 to 2002. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for The Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City, 2002.

The Impact of Changing Economics and Demographics on the Characteristics of New Homes and Housing Densities (Part II)@, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 61 Numbers 9 & 10, September/October 2001.

Utah Residential Construction: A Look at Past and Present Construction Cycles (Part I), Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 61, Numbers 1 &2, January/February 2001.

A Demand and Use Analysis of Research Park Land and Buildings 2000 to 2015. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for University of Utah Administration. Co-authored with Jan Crispin-Little, May 2000.

Single-Family Construction Bucks Trend@, Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 2. April, May, June 1999, published by Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

A Closer Look: Nonresidential Construction in Utah 1985 to 1998, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 59, Numbers 5 and 6, May/June 1999.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 81

Residential Construction Remains Surprisingly Strong, Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 1. January, February, March 1999, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

Construction Value Reaches New High, Utah Construction Report, Volume 41 No 4. October, November, December 1998, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.

Retail Trends and the Need for Downtown Revitalization, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 58, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1998.

Gateway Retail Development and Downtown Revitalization. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Boyer Company and Salt Lake City Council, October 1998.

"Overview of Construction and Housing in the Utah Economy", Economic Report to the Governor, 1998.

Utah Technology Finance Corporation: Economic Development Policy and Economic Impacts. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Utah Technology Finance Corporation, June 1998. “ “Housing Prices and Affordability in Utah", Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 57 Numbers 5 and 6, May/June 1997.

Demographic and Economic Trends for Utah, U.S., the Rocky Mountain Region and Hermes' Market Areas. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Hermes Associates. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1997.

"Housing Price Trends in Utah 1980-1996", Economic Report to the Governor, 1997. Impediments to Low and Moderate Income Housing in Unincorporated Salt Lake County and Selected Municipalities. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report for Salt Lake County Office of Economic Development and Job Training. December 1996.

The University of Utah Research Park: A Review of Policy and History. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared University of Utah Research Park Administration, December 1996.

Demographic and Economic Trends and Forecasts for Utah and Idaho. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Oldcastle Materials. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. February 1996.

"Construction Cycles in Utah" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1995.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 82

"Losing Ground: Housing Affordability and Low-Income Renters in Utah", Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 9 and 10, September/October 1995.

"The Performance of Wage Rates in Utah 1982-1993" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 3 and 4, March/April 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth E. Jensen, Utah Department of Employment Security.

Demographic, Economic and Export Statistics for the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Reported prepared for Salt Lake Airport Authority. May 1995.

A Study of the Custom Fit Training Program. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Utah State Office of Education. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1995.

"Utah Wage Levels" Economic Report to the Governor, 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth Jensen.

"Management of State Trust Lands in Washington County" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 54, Numbers 7 and 8, July/August 1994. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1994.

"The Changing Demographic and Economic Structure of Washington County, 1970-1993." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 54, Numbers 1 and 2, January/February 1994. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1994.

An Economic Analysis for the Management of State Lands in Washington County. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of State Lands and Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, March 1994.

"Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency's New Residential Mortgage Programs" Utah of Economic and Business Review, Volume 53, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1993. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah December, 1993.

Economic Analysis for the Salt Lake Courts Complex. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Facilities and Construction Management, Department of Administrative Services, State of Utah, October 1992.

"Economic Well-Being of Utah Households: 1979-1989" Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume 52, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May, 1992. Coauthored with R. Thayne Robson. Bureau of Economic and Business Review, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1992.

Economic Impact of the Utah Technology Finance Corporation on the Utah Economy. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Report prepared for the Utah Technology Finance Corporation, State of Utah, 1992.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 83

"Manufacturing in the West Since World War II." Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume 51, Number 3, March 1991. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1991.

"Utah's Adjustment to Declining Defense Budgets." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1990. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.

"Utah's Electronics Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Number 9, September 1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.

Electronics Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.

"Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Number 3, March 1990. Coauthored with Rose Ann Watson. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.

Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Women's Business Development Office, Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.

"Utah Housing Finance Agency: The Economic Impact of Mortgage Programs for New Residential Units." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 9, September 1989. Bureau of Economic and Business Review, University of Utah, 1989.

Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency Programs on the Utah Economy. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Utah Housing Finance Agency, 1989; annual report 1989 to present.

"Utah's Aerospace Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 8, August 1989. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1989.

Utah's Aerospace Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with John Brereton. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.

The Economic Impact of a Catastrophic Earthquake on Utah's Financial Institutions. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, Financial Institution Emergency Preparedness Committee, June 1989.

Public Education and Economic Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 84

The Characteristics and Potential of the Health Care and Weight Control/Fitness Industries of St. George. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Prepared for St. George City, October 1988.

Economic Profile Summit County/Park City. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report Prepared for Summit County/Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, September 1988.

The Economic Impact on Utah of the U.S. Petroleum Corporation's Wax Processing Plant. Report for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, October 1987.

Projected Employment Growth Rates for State Government. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Wallace Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 1987.

A Proposal for US West Advanced Technologies. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin and Shipley Associates. Prepared for Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1987.

"The Utah Housing Market: Demographic and Economic Trends." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 47, Number 3, March 1987. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, March 1987.

Utah as a Location for Frozen Prepared Food Manufacturing. Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Utah. Prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1986.

Capital Flow in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1986. Report prepared for Governor's Economic Development Conference, February 1986.

The Strategy and Economic Impact for the Development of a Western Town in Moab Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, June 1985.

"The Changing Conditions of The Salt Lake County Apartment Market." Utah Economic and Business Research, Volume 45, Number 3, March 1985. Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Utah, 1985.

"Utah's Expanding Service Sector," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44, Number 9, September 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, September 1984.

Electronics Target Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, September 1984.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 85

"Salt Lake County Apartment Construction Activity," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44, Number 6, June 1984. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1984.

Service Sector Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Report prepared for Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, May 1984.

Survey of Utah's Exporting Firms. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1983. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1983.

Market Feasibility Study for Apartment Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, December 1983.

Market Feasibility Study for Luxury Condominiums. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, October 1983.

"Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 43, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1983. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1983.

Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Small Business Development Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1983.

"The Electronics/Information Processing Industry in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 42, Number 10, October 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982.

The Electronic Components and Information Processing Industry and State Industrial Development Programs. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1982.

"Utah Homebuilding: Decline, Structural Changes, and Demand Factors." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 42, Number 9, September 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982.

"Utah's Thrust Belt: Exploration, Development and Economic Impacts." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 41, Number 1, January 1981. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1981.

Demand for Cold and Frozen Storage in Utah and the Mountain States. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1980.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 86

Proposed Industrial Park Development in Grand County. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Division of Economic and Industrial Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, October 1979.

Utah Labor Market Conditions for Manufacturing Assemblers and Electronic Technicians 1979. Coauthored with Randy Rogers and Ronda Brinkerhoff. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1979.

Utah: A Profitable Location for Headquarters and Administrative Office Facilities, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, September 1979. Report prepared for Division of Economic and Industrial Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1979.

Utah Demand for Bricks 1978, 1985, 1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, July 1979.

Market Feasibility Study for Kaolin Clay Production in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1979. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Office of Small Business Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1979.

Utah: A Profitable Location for the Machinery Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Division of Industrial Development, Department of Development Services, State of Utah, 1978.

"Demand for Housing in Salt Lake County." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake Davis, Weber, Utah and Cache Counties, Fall 1978. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978.

An Analysis of the Clay Roofing Tile Market in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, March 1978.

Sandy: An Economic Profile and Land Use Requirements. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with John Brereton and Randall Rogers. Report prepared for Sandy City Planning Office, January, 1977.

Demand for Selected Steel Products. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, October 1976. Coauthored with Dwight Israelsen, Robert Wood and Randall Rogers. Report prepared for Steelco Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976.

A Study of the Economic Potential of the Great Salt Lake State Park. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, September 1976. Coauthored with John Brereton and Janet Kiholm. Report prepared for Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, 1976.

Married Student Housing Survey. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, August 1976. Report prepared for Housing Management, University of Utah, 1976. Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 87

"The Changing Composition of the State Budget," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 36, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1976. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1976. "Utah Building Activity 1970-1975." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah and Cache Counties, Fall 1975. Coauthored with Kathy Watanabe. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1975.

"Condominium Developments in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 34, Number 9, September 1974. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1974.

Electronics Industry: Location Potential in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, June 1973. Coauthored with Jean H. Hanssen. Report prepared for the Division of Industrial Development, Department of Development Services, State of Utah, 1973.

Housing Needs Assessment for Utah Valley HOME Consortium Page 88